To Users of Google Groups

[Neredbojias]

With neither quill nor qualm, Safalra quothed:

Okay, he can be a bit abrasive at times. Maybe that's an
understatement... However, I've found he almost always either answers
the question or tells you why it's the wrong question, even if he's not
always diplomatic about it. I put it down to him being Finnish

The Finnish are so bad that even the Russians didn't want them.

 

[Toby Inkster]

what are the reasons if any for using Google Groups?

Being a lamer.

 

[Toby Inkster]

This is untrue. Although quoting is useful (particularly where
appropriately trimmed) the inter-message threading mechanism for Usenet
is the references: header in the post's header

Yes, the References header is good for automatic threading, but it relies
on the assumption that you actually have access to all the messages listed
in the references header -- you might not, which is why a quote is handy.

A quote is also handy because it lets people know to which *part* of the
message you're replying. For example, I might write a message.

Cows go moo.
Fish swim.
Chickens are a type of reptile.

You might post:

I disagree with you there.

But do you disagree with the first two statements? Probably not. Hence
it's a good idea to quote the part of the message to which you're
referring:

Chickens are a type of reptile.

I disagree with you there.

See?

 

[Toby Inkster]

"if you use google groups, you'll be killfiled"

I have my scoring mechanism set to score posts through GoogleGroups below
other posts. Not quite killed though.

 

[Safalra]

But I'm curious: what are the reasons if any for using Google Groups?

Despite knowing what Usenet is, its history (TINC), the process of
setting up new groups, what the headers mean, how sig delimiters work,
and so on, I still use Google Groups. None of the internet service
providers I've used have provided Usenet feeds, and I've never bothered
finding out how to get one otherwise.

So a one-word answer to the question would in my case be: Laziness.