fetch content from google results

[prabesh shrestha]

I need to fetch the url and little description that google provides
when we search something.I found a way to fetch the content form the
websites but that didn't worked with google search.I am initiation the
project conceptual search.

 

[bbound]

...which is prohibited by their Terms of Service.

Why do *you* care?

Especially given that theirs, like most website terms of service, are
about as legally binding as a chalk scribble on the sidewalk saying
"NO GURLS ALOUD!!!". Sometimes less so. The strongest they get is
analogous to a privately operated, publicly accessible structure
having a "no loitering" sign out front or similarly -- they reserve
the right to refuse service or close their doors to individuals that
do something they happen to not like.

At the same time, some behaviors, including the one in question, may
be done in in-principle-undetectable ways. Imagine trying to enforce a
"no loitering" sign against a ghost, or "NO GURLS ALOUD!!!" against an
anonymous tomboy very effectively disguised as a male. Further imagine
that the ghost, or whatever, is not bothering anybody or doing
anything with detectable negative consequences for the operator.

In particular, private use of some tool that uses Google should
qualify if the tool is not poorly-designed. Private use of Firefox to
view and query Google is really a special case of such anyway, and
there are also plugins for Firefox that modify specifically how Google
is presented or works for a particular user. Using a custom Google-
querying agent privately is not different in principle or effect from
using Firefox with some plugins (possibly including Adblock Plus), and
the latter is surely not reasonably considered either a) morally wrong
or b) a violation of anything, legally binding or otherwise.

Of course, an automated tool that hammered Google's servers with large
volumes of traffic beyond what a human surfing and searching would
cause, or publishing a "search engine" that just parasitizes Google
and rebrands its output before presenting it, is another matter
entirely. Both can harm or inconvenience Google, and both are of
course also easily detectable by Google. The loitering ghost has been
replaced by some creepy and all-too-substantial figure throwing rocks
at the plate glass in the doors or casing the jewelry store. At this
point, the line has clearly been crossed to doing something wrong and/
or doing something that Google has stated it doesn't like in a manner
quite visible to Google. Blocking access by the offending IP would be
Google's first resort in this case. If it looked to be an intentional
denial of service attack, they'd also have recourse to laws against
such cybervandalism, and if Google was being parasitized, to copyright
law.

However they would have a difficult time asserting breach of contract
in the courts, and given the alternative ways (including other legal-
action ways) of dealing with each type of abuse, they would be
unlikely to have any reason to do so.

 

[Roland de Ruiter]

I need to fetch the url and little description that google provides
when we search something.I found a way to fetch the content form the
websites but that didn't worked with google search.I am initiation the
project conceptual search.

Are you using a HttpURLConnection to perform the search?

When connecting to Google (or any other server), Java's implementation
of HttpURLConnection identifies itself by default with "Java/1.6.0_07"
as User-Agent request header (or similar, depending on which version of
Java is installed).

Google checks for the User-Agent request header and rejects requests
issued by unsupported browsers/user-agents, including "Java/1.6.0_07".

However, if you set the User-Agent request header of the
HttpURLConnection to a value used by a modern browser (e.g. Internet
Explorer, Firefox or Safari), you should be able to obtain the results
of the Google search.

Example program:

import java.io.InputStream;
import java.net.HttpURLConnection;
import java.net.URL;

public class GoogleSearch {

// User Agent value of Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP
public final static String UA_IE7 =
"Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.0; en-US)";

public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {

// Create search URL
URL searchURL =
new URL("http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Foo+Bar");

// Open connection
HttpURLConnection httpConnection =
(HttpURLConnection) searchURL.openConnection();

// Set User-Agent request header
httpConnection.setRequestProperty("User-Agent", UA_IE7);

// HTTP response code (200 means success)
System.out.println(httpConnection.getResponseCode());

// Open input stream on the search result page
InputStream searchResultStream =
httpConnection.getInputStream();
// TODO: process search result stream
}
}

 

[John B. Matthews]

I need to fetch the url and little description that google provides
when we search something. I found a way to fetch the content form
the websites but that didn't worked with google search. I am
initiation the project conceptual search.

Are you using a HttpURLConnection to perform the search?

When connecting to Google (or any other server), Java's implementation
of HttpURLConnection identifies itself by default with "Java/1.6.0_07"
as User-Agent request header (or similar, depending on which version of
Java is installed).

Google checks for the User-Agent request header and rejects requests
issued by unsupported browsers/user-agents, including "Java/1.6.0_07".

However, if you set the User-Agent request header of the
HttpURLConnection to a value used by a modern browser (e.g. Internet
Explorer, Firefox or Safari), you should be able to obtain the
results of the Google search.

Example program: [...]

Additional information on User-Agent for popular browsers:

<http://developer.mozilla.org/en/User_Agent_Strings_Reference>
<http://developer.apple.com/internet/safari/faq.html#anchor2>
<http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms537503.aspx>

 

[prabesh shrestha]

package conceptualsearch;

import java.io.*;
import java.net.*;
import java.util.Scanner;

public final class Main {

public static void main(String... aArgs) throws
MalformedURLException {
String url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Simple_HTML_Ontology_Extensions";
String urli = "http:'//'www.google.com/search?hl'='en&q'='php";
String option = "content";
Main fetcher = new Main(url);
log( fetcher.getPageContent() );

}

public Main( URL aURL ){
if ( ! HTTP.equals(aURL.getProtocol()) ) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("URL is not for HTTP
Protocol: " + aURL);
}
fURL = aURL;
}

public Main( String aUrlName ) throws MalformedURLException {
this ( new URL(aUrlName) );
}

/** Fetch the HTML content of the page as simple text. */
public String getPageContent() {
String result = null;
URLConnection connection = null;
try {
connection = fURL.openConnection();
Scanner scanner = new Scanner(connection.getInputStream());
scanner.useDelimiter(END_OF_INPUT);
result = scanner.next();
}
catch ( IOException ex ) {
log("Cannot open connection to " + fURL.toString());
}
return result;
}


// PRIVATE //
private URL fURL;

private static final String HTTP = "http";
private static final String HEADER = "header";
private static final String CONTENT = "content";
private static final String END_OF_INPUT = "\\Z";
private static final String NEWLINE =
System.getProperty("line.separator");

private static void log(Object aObject){
System.out.println(aObject);
}
}



here is my code .I could get all the content if i set url as wikipedia
but i could not get the snipplet from google.I don't understant what
is happening.Maybe someone has the solution.

 

[Roland de Ruiter]

[...]
String urli = "http:'//'www.google.com/search?hl'='en&q'='php";

I doubt that this is a valid url for a Google search. Instead try
String urli = "http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=php";

String result = null;
URLConnection connection = null;
try {
connection = fURL.openConnection();

For Google, you need to set the User-Agent header to a value used by one
of the modern browsers. See my previous post.

[...]
}
catch ( IOException ex ) {

Print the exception's stack trace: it gives you much more information.

log("Cannot open connection to " + fURL.toString());
}
[...]

here is my code .I could get all the content if i set url as wikipedia
but i could not get the snipplet from google.I don't understant what
is happening.Maybe someone has the solution.

You seem to have missed my previous post.

 

[prabesh shrestha]

Thanks ,now its working .Code I posted was after getting help from
Roland De Ruiter.Actually i didn't miss your previous post but i think
the problem was with my url.I really appreciate all of you for
helping.Thanks again.

Prabesh Shrestha

 

[prabesh shrestha]

Thanks everybody.Our project has started in a positive note.Our
project is conceptual search.If anybody wants to collaborate with us
in the project,I want to welcome them.We are a team of four.If you
need other details you can mail me at (e-mail address removed).

Thanks,
Prabesh Shrestha

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

Why do *you* care?

It is called moral !

Especially given that theirs, like most website terms of service, are
about as legally binding as a chalk scribble on the sidewalk saying
"NO GURLS ALOUD!!!". Sometimes less so. The strongest they get is
analogous to a privately operated, publicly accessible structure
having a "no loitering" sign out front or similarly -- they reserve
the right to refuse service or close their doors to individuals that
do something they happen to not like.

If you do not comply with their term of service, then you have not
right to use their service.

And considering that you apparently like to use a free service from
Google yourself, then I think you should show some respect for them.

At the same time, some behaviors, including the one in question, may
be done in in-principle-undetectable ways. Imagine trying to enforce a
"no loitering" sign against a ghost, or "NO GURLS ALOUD!!!" against an
anonymous tomboy very effectively disguised as a male. Further imagine
that the ghost, or whatever, is not bothering anybody or doing
anything with detectable negative consequences for the operator.

There are two types of people:
- those that follow the rules because they think that is the right way
- those that follow the rules only if they think they otherwise will get
caught

I guess we know where you stand. But other have higher moral standards.

In particular, private use of some tool that uses Google should
qualify if the tool is not poorly-designed. Private use of Firefox to
view and query Google is really a special case of such anyway, and
there are also plugins for Firefox that modify specifically how Google
is presented or works for a particular user. Using a custom Google-
querying agent privately is not different in principle or effect from
using Firefox with some plugins (possibly including Adblock Plus), and
the latter is surely not reasonably considered either a) morally wrong
or b) a violation of anything, legally binding or otherwise.

If Google say it is a violation (and Googles rules does not violate
law) then it is a violation no matter how many lam excuses you come
up with.

Arne

 

[scuzwalla]

[snip]

Who let you off your leash? Why attack this post no, weeks after I
wrote it? Why not just leave me alone, for that matter, jerkwad?
[snip]

NO FEEDBACK LOOPS!

What I write in response to Peter is no skin off your nose.

It is called moral !

No, it is not. Morals has to do with avoiding actions that may
actually harm people, and with honesty. You, of course, wouldn't know
anything about either, mind you, so I suppose I should have expected
you to get this wrong.

The supposed "offense" here does not even rise to the level of
ignoring a "keep off the grass" sign, since (done right) you won't
have left any footprints on the grass or otherwise damaged the lawn,
and nobody will have been watching and seen you. What Google doesn't
know (and that doesn't use excessive bandwidth or get used to compete
unfairly against them) doesn't hurt Google. That includes private,
responsible use of automation to access Google. (If it didn't, it
would exclude using IE or Firefox to access google! You'd have to
telnet to their port 80, manually type get requests, and manually
interpret the results. How silly.)

If you do not comply with their term of service, then you have not
right to use their service.

Not quite true. If I do not comply with their terms of service, then
they have the right to refuse service. They may or may not actually
choose to do so in any given instance, and that's assuming they can
even detect the "violation".

And considering that you apparently like to use a free service from
Google yourself, then I think you should show some respect for them.

I have plenty of respect for the founders. I have none for a bunch of
lawyers that write broad and overreaching terms and generally try to
claim absurd levels of control, one of the artifacts of having what
they call an "adversarial" system. I also couldn't care less if my
actions are theoretically disliked by some large corporation but are
also undetectable by same and have no actual harmful consequences for
them.

Not that I have taken any such actions. We were discussing someone
*else*'s Java project, if you'd bother to actually read the whole
thread, when someone made an irrelevant comment and I made a note of
the fact of its irrelevancy. And then you bided your time for a week
before attacking, randomly and without provocation, simply because of
the identity of that comment's author, rather than for any other
reason.

There are two types of people:
- those that follow the rules because they think that is the right way
- those that follow the rules only if they think they otherwise will get
   caught

You are oversimplifying, and as usual you are doing it deliberately
and dishonestly in a rather transparent, poorly-thought-out, and
futile attempt to make me look bad.

There are, in fact, three types of people:
- Those that follow the rules at all times, no matter how silly the
rules or how questionable they are in purpose, enforceability, whose
best interests they serve (if anyone's!), etc. -- these people are
known as "goody two shoes". A bunch of them killed lots of Jews in
Nazi Germany and excused it later on as "just following orders".
- Those that follow the rules only if they think they would otherwise
get caught, no matter how important the rules are. One of them is
posting nasty, inflammatory, rude, and off-topic posts to cljp as part
of a smear campaign and this post is a reply to that asshole.
- And then there's most people, who follow rules that are enforced and
rules that make sense. For example, they don't steal or kill, because
rules against those are enforced and doing those things is really not
very nice. They don't lie much, because they may get caught in a lie
and most lying is for hostile purposes, and not very nice. They may
tell white lies, technically "against the rules", where there is some
overriding reason. They may ignore a pointless, unenforceable, or
otherwise silly rule that serves no useful purpose, their breaking of
which would not actually harm anybody. Particularly if the rule in
question makes some hairsplitting or nitpicky distinction (e.g. this
http client is ok, that one isn't, etc. when they all generate
comparable levels of traffic when in use and are being used for
private browsing purposes), or the rule has dubious authority behind
it (e.g. it's neither a law, nor part of any binding contract signed
by the would-be rule-breaker, nor a socially-enforced social norm like
"thou shalt not wear bright mauve polyester to the shopping mall after
Jan. 1, 1980", nor is its breaking even detectable (which indicates
its breaking does no harm, in particular).

As I said, what the OP contemplates doing isn't even at the level of
ignoring a "Keep Off the Grass" sign.

I guess we know where you stand. But other have higher moral standards.

I have the utmost moral standards. But they recognize a distinction
between an action being *immoral* and an action being against some
particular rule from some particular rule-book. An immoral action has
to cause, or recklessly risk causing, harm to someone, where "harm"
means "something hurts them" with some added nuances to allow for
consensual "hurt", forms of "hurt" that are generally allowed
(business competition, free speech that may offend, &c.). Many rules
are immoral to break, and breaking promises is typically immoral (and
thus, breaching contracts), but not always. Contracts may have
unconscionable clauses; in many cases, whistleblowers violate an NDA
but are doing the right thing by doing so. The rules against some
recreational drug use are pointless and stupid (but well-enforced,
making it unwise though not immoral to break them; not immoral, since
your private use of such substances harms no child or unconsenting
adult). An awful lot of rules and even laws, perhaps most of them, are
not always immoral to break, and a fair number are rarely if ever
immoral to break.

Speeding may be moral and keeping to the speed limit immoral in some
circumstances, if the general flow of traffic is faster than the speed
limit. It's safer, for oneself and others, to stay close to the speed
of surrounding traffic rather than deviating substantially from that
speed, whatever some sign says. You're not even especially likely to
get a ticket -- with everyone going the same speed, any tickets would
be issued more or less at random with each particular driver in that
bunch having low odds of being singled out for one, if they do nothing
else to stand out from the crowd. Heck, going slower makes you stand
out and radar guns have been known to produce false positives...

Only an authoritarian would argue that morality is identical to
following the rules, or even that it is especially close. And
authoritarianism is the moral philosophy that we have to thank for
things like the Holocaust, not its opposite ("hooliganism"?) or the
common sense behavior of the majority of people, which avoids either
extreme.

If Google say it is a violation (and Googles rules does not violate
law) then it is a violation

Technically, but a violation of what? Not morals, and not of a legal
contract. It's not breaking a promise (you never promised anything to
Google). It's not lying, except to the extent that you spoof the UA
string, and browser compatibility wars and discriminatory sites have
resulted in a lot of UA spoofing to the extent that it surely cannot
be considered immoral. The UA string is generally seen only by
machines anyway, so UA spoofing isn't really lying anyway you slice
it, unless you would argue that nonsentient machines have a natural
right to truth or something equally ridiculous. Extending natural
rights to nonsentient *animals* often gets taken too far, though those
can feel and anticipate pain and so we have some degree of moral duty
to spare them avoidable suffering. Machines don't have even those
limited rights. Our society doesn't tend to consider *human children*
for that matter to have a right to the truth, though they can think
and speak as well as feel; lies (mostly euphemisms and white lies,
mind you) are told to children all the time -- sometimes for reasons
that I suspect are misguided, or just plain don't work as intended,
mind you.

Indeed, the effect the OP has on Google may be 100% indistinguishable
from the effect they'd have using Firefox and then doing some
additional work manually, or by feeding the results of "save as..." in
Firefox to a program that doesn't make any network connections of its
own.

Republishing Google pages would be copyright infringement, which is an
entirely separate matter and the OP indicated no intention to do so.

Flooding Google with bandwidth would be a denial of service attack,
which is an entirely separate matter and the OP indicated no intention
to do so; one hopes they will ensure that their software's requests
will be rate-limited to be comparable to, or less frequent than, the
rate typically generated by a human surfing a site.

With those two potential harms to Google not occurring, not only is
Google unharmed but they have no way of detecting the "harm" anyway,
short of actually spying on people with that new GeoEye satellite of
theirs or something. (And if they did that, I'd consider Google to be
acting immorally, if they somehow were using it to look into private
spaces.)

It's like a "keep off the grass" sign being "violated" by Casper the
Friendly Ghost moving off the sidewalk and onto the lawn, while
remaining invisible and insubstantial.

If the OP had indicated here an intention to cut a corner across a
lawn with a "keep off the grass" sign would you or Peter have wigged
out this badly? Even though that proposed action would have been
worse, by any reasonable reckoning, having a discernible effect and
involving actual trespass as it would have?

no matter how many [misspelled insult deleted]

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

 

[scuzwalla]

NO FEEDBACK LOOPS!

[implied insult deleted]

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

 

[prabesh shrestha]

I can't understand what is going on.This is just one of my college
project.I don't care if its legal or eagle to fetch the content from
google.If i cant get the text from google i will complete my project
with text documents.My main concept is Conceptual not google but i
would prefer to do the project with the search engine.

Thanks,
Prabesh Shrestha

 

[scuzwalla]

I can't understand what is going on.

I'm sorry. It's nothing to do with you. You see, for about a year now
certain assholes here hate me very much and respond with knee-jerk
hostility every time they see my name on a posting.

So, now you know where the blame lies for all this acrimony -- mainly
with Arne.

I suggest you just killfile Arne.

 

[scuzwalla]

Most people are smart enough to recognize a distinction between an
action being *immoral* and an action being against some particular
rule from some particular rule-book. An immoral action has to cause,
or recklessly risk causing, harm to someone, where "harm" means
"something hurts them" with some added nuances to allow for consensual
"hurt", forms of "hurt" that are generally allowed (business
competition, free speech that may offend, &c.). Many rules are immoral
to break, and breaking promises is typically immoral (and thus,
breaching contracts), but not always. Contracts may have
unconscionable clauses; in many cases, whistleblowers violate an NDA
but are doing the right thing by doing so. The rules against some
recreational drug use are pointless and stupid (but well-enforced,
making it unwise though not immoral to break them; not immoral, since
your private use of such substances harms no child or unconsenting
adult). An awful lot of rules and even laws, perhaps most of them, are
not always immoral to break, and a fair number are rarely if ever
immoral to break.

Speeding may be moral and keeping to the speed limit immoral in some
circumstances, if the general flow of traffic is faster than the speed
limit. It's safer, for oneself and others, to stay close to the speed
of surrounding traffic rather than deviating substantially from that
speed, whatever some sign says. You're not even especially likely to
get a ticket -- with everyone going the same speed, any tickets would
be issued more or less at random with each particular driver in that
bunch having low odds of being singled out for one, if they do nothing
else to stand out from the crowd. Heck, going slower makes you stand
out and radar guns have been known to produce false positives...

Only an authoritarian would argue that morality is identical to
following the rules, or even that it is especially close. And
authoritarianism is the moral philosophy that we have to thank for
things like the Holocaust, not its opposite ("hooliganism"?) or the
common sense behavior of the majority of people, which avoids either
extreme.

[grammar nazi rantings deleted]

 

[foo bar baz qux]

I can't understand what is going on.

Your thread has been hijacked by a troll.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

This particular one is Paul G Derbyshire of Ottawa Canada. He posts
using the names Twisted, neo1061, nebulous99, bbound, twerpinator,
reckoning54, scuzwalla, and zerg.

His main characteristics are an avowed belief in his own infallibilty,
a touch of paranoia, and a tendancy to endlessly reply saying "None of
the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all
true". He claims to believe that that future readers will believe him
to be normal if the number of his replies equals the number of
contradictory comments. This leads him to make literally thousands of
replies saying essentially the same thing. Such obsessive mania
clearly is self-defeating for him but he is incapable of recognising
this.

The zerg name is one with which he appears to be attempting to
establish a separate identity untarnished by association with the
others. However Paul always eventually commits the same sort of
mistakes and provocations and so is always identifiable within a short
while.

Unfortunately you are using Google Groups so you can't filter out his
messages (as many do). You might like to download a free usenet/
newsgroup reader client program and use that to access this newsgroup
through a NNTP server provided by your ISP or a free NNTP service
provider. Then you can filter out trolls.

 

[The ScuzzBuster]

[snip]

No. You are not supposed to exist. Your ISP has been notified of your
repeated acts of harassment, libel, and attempted breach of
confidentiality. Why have they not taken action?

Your thread has been hijacked by a troll.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

This particular one is Paul G Derbyshire of Ottawa Canada.

No, he is Arne Vajhoj of God knows where.

He posts using the names Twisted, neo1061, nebulous99, bbound, twerpinator,
reckoning54, scuzwalla, and zerg.

No, I post under all of those names except zerg, and zerg is somebody
else yet again.

You have confused four people with one another that are separate:
Arne Vajhoj, who hijacked this thread.
Paul Derbyshire, who doesn't even post here.
Me.
And zerg, who has not posted to this thread but does post to this
newsgroup.

Please at least TRY to get things straight in your head before posting
utter nonsense.

[a large mass of insults, aimed, apparently, at the absent Paul
Derbyshire, deleted]

I couldn't venture to guess whether any of that is true of him or not.
Rest assured that some of it is true of Arne, and none of it is true
of me.

The zerg name is one with which he appears to be attempting to
establish a separate identity untarnished by association with the
others.

No, the zerg name is some other guy entirely who is simply trying to
use the newsgroup in peace, but is probably having a hard time doing
so because of you.

[insults Paul some more]

I don't know what kind of beef you have with Paul, but I'd suggest
taking it up with him in person and IN PRIVATE. This is
comp.lang.java.programmer, a newsgroup for the discussion of Java
programming. It is not your personal blog, nor is it alt.flame. Please
at least TRY to improve your usenet netiquette before posting to any
newsgroup again BUT alt.flame.

Unfortunately you are using Google Groups so you can't filter out his
messages (as many do).

Actually, he can't filter out Paul's messages because there are none
for him to filter out. Paul isn't posting to this thread, or, to the
best of my knowledge, to any thread. In fact the first time I'd ever
heard of the guy was when people started gratuitously insulting him
here, and (apparently) mistaking me for him.

 

[Lars Enderin]

No, I post under all of those names except zerg, and zerg is somebody
else yet again.

The zerg alias revealed himself as Twisted a couple of months ago by
reacting in the unique Twisted way when nobody would agree with him. He
has cleaned up his act since then, and the only thing that speaks
against you being zerg is that he appears too intelligent and reasonable
now. Multiple personalities?

You have confused four people with one another that are separate:
Arne Vajhoj, who hijacked this thread.

"Hijacked" = pointed to legal aspects?

No, the zerg name is some other guy entirely who is simply trying to
use the newsgroup in peace, but is probably having a hard time doing
so because of you.

You are very predictable, and totally unreliable. Of course you would
have no choice but to deny the above. Very few people will believe you.

 

[The ScuzzBuster]

[snip]

NO FEEDBACK LOOPS!

What I write in response to foo bar baz qux is no skin off your nose.

No, I post under all of those names except zerg, and zerg is somebody
else yet again.

The zerg alias revealed himself as Twisted a couple of months ago
[rest of bullshit deleted]

No, he did not.

the only thing that speaks against you being zerg is that [implied
vicious insult deleted]

No, you're the stupid one and the crazy one.

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

"Hijacked" = pointed to legal aspects?

Hijacked = first took off topic, then started a flamewar.

Moreover, nothing that he wrote has to do with "legal aspects" of
anything, except to the extent that obeying or disobeying a "keep off
the grass" sign might be considered to be a matter for lawyers.

(Maybe in America...)

No, the zerg name is some other guy entirely who is simply trying to
use the newsgroup in peace, but is probably having a hard time doing
so because of you.

[insults deleted, including calling me a liar]

No, you're the liar.

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

 

[foo bar baz qux]

The zerg alias revealed himself as Twisted a couple of months ago by
reacting in the unique Twisted way when nobody would agree with him.

For example:
"I did not make any mistake. I do not make mistakes. Stop lying about
me
in public."
....
"I.
DID.
NOT.
MAKE.
ANY.
MISTAKE!"
....
"I won't respond to any further posts from you except to deny, for the
record, that there's any truth to any insults that you've included in
them."

and so on for hundreds of lines.
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/comp.lang.java.programmer/msg/2f8b87b018929662

So reminiscent of Twisted/bbound/nebulous99/twerpinator/reckoning54/
scuzwalla (Paul).

 

[The ScuzzBuster]

On 8 Oct, 07:49, Lars Enderin <[email protected]> wrote:

[snip]

NO FEEDBACK LOOPS!

The zerg alias revealed himself as Twisted a couple of months ago
[rest of bullshit deleted]

No, he did not.

[a huge amount of off-topic and irrelevant nonsense deleted]

You are posting to the wrong newsgroup. In fact, you are breathing the
wrong planet's air. Go away.

So reminiscent of Twisted/bbound/nebulous99/twerpinator/reckoning54/
scuzwalla (Paul).

You are confused. Twisted, bbound, nebulous99, twerpinator,
rechoning54, and scuzwalla are all the same person, yes, but that
person's name is not Paul.