Latest models of Gibson guitars

[kaldrenon]

As you can see, I was not referring to this thread at all, but to an
earlier incident that did involve a multi-posted article.

Fair enough, I see that this is true. But the first half of my
original post in this thread is still valid - in which I endeavored to
point out to you just how easy it is to avoid saying things like
"Python is off-topic here" to a thread that is cross-posted and one of
the cross-posted groups is c.l.py

It's important to remember that Usenet is not, for most intents and
purposes, a place. It is a tool. It is a collection of information. It
is a vast web for messages to and from and in countless computers, and
the concept of "here" is vague at best, here.

I noted that
although if for some reason I decided to look at the full headers of
every message I'd know which ones were cross-posted like this thread
I'd still not know which ones were multi-posted without even more hoop-
jumping, namely google searches for each and every one, and pointed
out that earlier, in another thread, people had even expected me to
notice that some post had been multi-posted despite the obvious fact
that such an expectation is woefully unrealistic.

It /is/ rather unrealistic to assume that someone else has checked to
determine if a message has been multiposted. There are a few
exceptions - a Java guru will probably read cljp,cljh, and other Java
newsgroups, so a Java-related multipost is easy to catch. Spam, not so
much.

I do apologize for getting slightly confused about the context of your
message earlier - I had missed, the first time I read it, that it was
about another thread. But please don't miss the point that I had been
trying to make: You don't own cljp, not everything that gets sent to
cljp gets sent /only/ to cljp, and even though it's much, much nicer
when people talk about Java here, you don't have the authority to stop
them if they don't.

 

[Twisted]

Fortunately I am blessed with Thunderbird, which displays all targeted
newgroups in its To: list

I've had occasion to use Thunderbird in the past, and I seem to recall
the message pane just showing basically the same stuff GG does:
Subject:, From:, Date:, and body, with the newsgroup you're currently
in in the window title bar far above. I seem to recall there was a +
or something to click to view the full headers -- which then covered
the whole pane with a grey slab of header info, in which select/copy
was broken, and which could not be scrolled.

No fewer hoops to jump through there, then, unless there's been a
major change in Thunderbird's UI in a recent version or something.

 

[Twisted]

It's important to remember that Usenet is not, for most intents and
purposes, a place. It is a tool. It is a collection of information. It
is a vast web for messages to and from and in countless computers, and
the concept of "here" is vague at best, here.

Fascinating. But people will still tend to think of themselves as "in"
a particular group (generally one they've subscribed to and are
checking for and reading the unread messages in) at any given time.
This is a simple and unavoidable fact.

It /is/ rather unrealistic to assume that someone else has checked to
determine if a message has been multiposted. There are a few
exceptions - a Java guru will probably read cljp,cljh, and other Java
newsgroups, so a Java-related multipost is easy to catch.

I certainly don't have the time or inclination to follow any of the
others -- especially not cljh, which I expect will have twice the
volume, half the SNR, and a quarter of the technical detail of this
group.

[snip some sort of mildly-condescending semi-apology]

 

[Jeff Higgins]

I certainly don't have the time or inclination to follow any of the
others -- especially not cljh, which I expect will have twice the
volume, half the SNR, and a quarter of the technical detail of this
group.

My take on cljh v cljp.
cljh.volume = cljp.volume * .25
cljp.snr = cljp.snr * 8
cljp.techDetail = cljp.techDetail * .125

 

[Lew]

I've had occasion to use Thunderbird in the past, and I seem to recall
the message pane just showing basically the same stuff GG does:
Subject:, From:, Date:, and body, with the newsgroup you're currently
in in the window title bar far above. I seem to recall there was a +

I have no idea what GG shows. Thunderbird shows "Subject", "From", "Date" and
"Newsgroups" in the viewing pane, just above the message itself.

or something to click to view the full headers -- which then covered

I am not viewing full headers.

the whole pane with a grey slab of header info, in which select/copy
was broken, and which could not be scrolled.

I have no idea what that's about. I can select or copy out of any of that
stuff with no difficulty.

No fewer hoops to jump through there, then, unless there's been a
major change in Thunderbird's UI in a recent version or something.

I don't know the history of Thunderbird. I am using version 2.0.0.5.

This is just the default view; I simply enabled the "Message Pane" so I don't
have to open each message individually. If I do open an individual message,
it shows the exact same information, again by default.

As I say, as I am blessed with seeing the full list of targeted newsgroups
without any additional effort on my part, I am happy to let people know if
messages are cross-posted, given that GG seems so much more unfriendly.

 

[kaldrenon]

Fascinating. But people will still tend to think of themselves as "in"
a particular group (generally one they've subscribed to and are
checking for and reading the unread messages in) at any given time.
This is a simple and unavoidable fact.

But the number of people who do this can be decreased with polite
reminders, like:

"When referring to "this" newsgroup or "here", one must remember that
this is a
cross-posted thread, so those concepts have multiple referents.

Take another look at the address field ("Newsgroups:") of the message,
then
redefine "this newsgroup" accordingly - there are more than one due to
the
spammish cross-posting of the original message.

So let's all stop being so parochial, hmm? "

I certainly don't have the time or inclination to follow any of the
others

Didn't say you did. Just that there are exceptions to the rule.
Multiposts are not always hard or annoying to catch - just most of the
time.

 

[Lew]

That's why it is to your benefit, Twisted, to mention to folks that they
should not multipost.

It is also to your benefit, Twisted, to remind people that cross-posting has
adverse consequences for folks like you.

No worries - I got your back.

 

[Twisted]

I don't know the history of Thunderbird. I am using version 2.0.0.5.

Just for the sake of testing I just ran Thunderbird and viewed some
usenet posts through a read-only public usenet server. I see Subject:,
From:, and Date:, but not Newsgroups: without full headers. The about
thing says version 1.0.7 (20050923) -- I'm pretty sure what you read
as 2.0.0.5 is the year in the build number. (Strange that it hasn't
apparently been updated for two years -- but it claims to be up to
date, and I'm sure I have the new version notification option turned
on.)

I can also clarify the selection thing. When I expand the headers I
can select, but only inside of a single line. It won't make multi-line
selections, which makes the feature rather useless for e.g. reporting
spam, where full headers are often requested, or even the full raw
message text including body. Dunno why, given that they can find it
given only the message-ID if it's still on their news spool and can
probably find it on Google Groups with just the message-ID also, and
certainly with the full headers, and thus get a copy with full headers
and body text.

 

[Twisted]

But the number of people who do this can be decreased with polite
reminders, like:

"When referring to "this" newsgroup or "here", one must remember that
this is a
cross-posted thread, so those concepts have multiple referents.

How does one "remember" what one might not ever have known and then
"forgot"? This presupposes that the cross-postedness of a thread is
immediately evident on simply clicking the thread and beginning to
read a message it contains. I am pointing out that depending on news
software this is not necessarily the case. In particular, it is
unobvious with Google Groups and it is unobvious with (at least a
particular version of) Thunderbird (at least with its default
configuration).

Didn't say you did. Just that there are exceptions to the rule.
Multiposts are not always hard or annoying to catch - just most of the
time.

Given that, it might make sense to simply ignore the question of
whether any given post may or may not have been multiposted unless
it's clearly OT and looks like spam, in which case you might want to
use a GG search to see if there are more than a couple of dozen copies
or so, which would suffice to get it classified as spam by most ISPs
and thus get the poster tossed by their provider most of the times.

If a posting is on-topic here it should be treated as such, in
isolation from anything that may or may not be happening in any other
newsgroup. If you actually stumble by chance onto a copy elsewhere and
had a response you want the author to see, and you think they might
check only one copy for responses (but why make several if so?), you
could copy and paste your response, which would be very quick compared
to composing another one de novo. On the other hand, if your news
software lets you hand-hack the References: you could crosspost a
single reply to both (or all) messages including all their message-IDs
in the references, which would make your reply appear in each thread
with properly threading news readers. Otherwise you could still cross-
post the reply with Re: subject and if the subjects are the same at
least some news software will lump your reply in with each copy,
although not show it in a tree view as descended from the original
post in any copy except the single one that you were viewing when you
hit reply.

 

[Lew]

Just for the sake of testing I just ran Thunderbird and viewed some
usenet posts through a read-only public usenet server. I see Subject:,
From:, and Date:, but not Newsgroups: without full headers. The about

There is a little "expand" plus-sign there that shows the Newsgroups: as well.

Still without full headers.

thing says version 1.0.7 (20050923) -- I'm pretty sure what you read
as 2.0.0.5 is the year in the build number. (Strange that it hasn't
apparently been updated for two years -- but it claims to be up to
date, and I'm sure I have the new version notification option turned
on.)

Not correct. I am running version 2.0.0.5 (20070719).

I don't know why you're "pretty sure" that I read something different; I told
you what the facts are. (The periods in the version numbers are a clue, too.)

Like you, I used the "about" feature to glean the facts.

I can also clarify the selection thing. When I expand the headers I
can select, but only inside of a single line. It won't make multi-line
selections, which makes the feature rather useless for e.g. reporting
spam, where full headers are often requested, or even the full raw
message text including body. Dunno why, given that they can find it
given only the message-ID if it's still on their news spool and can
probably find it on Google Groups with just the message-ID also, and
certainly with the full headers, and thus get a copy with full headers
and body text.

If you need full headers, use the Thunderbird "View source" feature (Ctrl-U).
It's a rare enough need that it doesn't do that except on request, but as
you point out, headers are invaluable for spam reports and the like.

 

[Patricia Shanahan]

Twisted wrote:
....

I can also clarify the selection thing. When I expand the headers I
can select, but only inside of a single line. It won't make multi-line
selections, which makes the feature rather useless for e.g. reporting
spam, where full headers are often requested, or even the full raw
message text including body.

....

At least with the Thunderbird version I'm using, version 2.0.0.6
(20070728), View - Message Source works well. It brings up a simple text
display of the whole message, headers included. No pretty formatting, no
arbitrary restrictions on what can be selected.

Patricia

 

[Lew]

At least with the Thunderbird version I'm using, version 2.0.0.6
(20070728),

Ooh - I'm gonna have to upgrade!

 

[Twisted]

There is a little "expand" plus-sign there that shows the Newsgroups: as well.

That's what I meant before. It's not shown by default -- you have to
specifically go looking for evidence to discover that a thread is (or
isn't) cross-posted.

Still without full headers.

The + shows full headers for me. It doesn't let you properly select
them (as in multi-line), or select headers and some body text; that
seems to require "view source" and a trip to the menus.

Not correct.

You DARE to attack me?! What is your problem anyway? If you dislike me
so much why not killfile me? Why publicly insult me instead?

I am running version 2.0.0.5 (20070719).

Impossible. As I said I have update notification turned on. There's
been no notification in two years. Certainly when I ran it again just
now it should have discovered any updated version that you were using
hours prior. It did not and I definitely have it configured to do so
(in fact I don't think it has an option to turn *off* automatic
notification of updates; Firefox either).

I don't know why you're "pretty sure" that I read something different; I told
you what the facts are.

Because of two simple and obvious facts:
a) my copy is not out of date, and your number was bigger;
b) your number was 2.0.0.5 and the closest match to that in the up-to-
date copy I have is the 2005 in the build number.

Like you, I used the "about" feature to glean the facts.

But you obviously read them differently. Unless, of course, the update
notification feature quietly broke spontaneously years ago (perhaps
due to a bug in the last update I got and which stopped it discovering
any future ones?) but I find that by far less probable.

 

[Twisted]

At least with the Thunderbird version I'm using, version 2.0.0.6
(20070728), View - Message Source works well. It brings up a simple text
display of the whole message, headers included. No pretty formatting, no
arbitrary restrictions on what can be selected.

That's more actions (= more hoop jumping) than clicking the +, which
is sufficient to simply see if a thread is cross-posted, but is still
*a* hoop, and of course none of this can ever give a clue regarding
the post's status vis-a-vis *multi*-posting.

Also, the version number you gave cannot be correct. It would mean
there's a newer version than the one I'm using, but my copy is
definitely configured to give update notices, since I distinctly
recall it doing so in the past and haven't changed anything in its
settings that might be relevant. (In fact, I specifically looked and
couldn't find such a setting, which means it actually can't be turned
off.) Certainly, if this were working correctly and not turned off
when I ran it a half-hour ago and this supposed version 2.0.0.6 (or
the 2.0.0.5 Lew claims exists) existed it should have notified me that
my version was no longer current. It did nothing of the sort.

Either you and Lew are inventing a bogus newer version, presumably as
part of some elaborate gag intended to insult me, or the update
notification functionality is broken (perhaps by a bug in the last
update it did notify me about?)

Both seem unlikely to me, though there doesn't seem to be a third
explanation. An update notification bug would be an odd thing to
introduce, as it would mean the last update had touched code that was
clearly already working for some reason. Also, it's not like we're
talking Microsoft here. On the other hand, while I find it easy to
believe that Lew would be a party to some sort of off-topic game-
playing at my expense purely out of the vicious joy of putting other
people down, I don't find the same easy to believe of you, given your
posting history, which has tended to be far more benign and, when it
comes to any kind of disputes, even-handed.

The alternative is you both independently misread something in nearly-
identical ways, or some similar coincidence of non-malicious errors on
your parts. This also doesn't seem likely.

Nevertheless, I don't like being lied to, and apparently somebody *is*
lying to me. Either you and Lew are mistaken, you and Lew are lying,
or the people responsible for Mozilla are lying in that software whose
behavior they are responsible for and which in respect to certain
functionality acts as their agent and spokesperson is lying by
claiming that 1.0.7 (somethingorother) is the most recent version --
well, technically, lying by omission by not claiming otherwise in
violation of its past behavior and the avowed purpose of that
functionality, thus implying something false.

But which is it?

 

[Twisted]

Ooh - I'm gonna have to upgrade!

This is very odd. Assuming there's no conspiracy here, Lew also isn't
getting update notifications automatically. Which would seem to mean
that notification of updates stopped, without fanfare, a little less
than two years ago.

That would be damned irresponsible of the Mozilla team, especially
given that there might have been security holes found in that time
(indeed, it's a near-certainty given the span of time in question and
the type of software in question). If they were going to stop sending
update notifications via Thunderbird itself reporting the existence of
such updates, they should have used the mechanism one last time to
notify everyone that they'd have to manually check for updates from
then on. Also, they should have been consistent and done likewise for
Firefox, which they haven't -- my copy last updated itself just a
month or so ago. That Firefox continues to auto-discover new versions
of Firefox implies to people that Thunderbird is still doing likewise,
and therefore that an absence of notifications means that you are
still up to date. An explicit notification to the contrary would be
especially prudent then, to let people know that future Thunderbird
updates would require manually seeking them out from time to time,
given that Firefox's behavior would otherwise lull them into a false
sense of security that both applications are continuing to be vigilant
when in fact only Firefox is.

The thing is, Mozilla is not Microsoft and strives to be everything
Microsoft is not. Such irresponsible and/or buggy behavior is simply
uncharacteristic of them. Unfortunately I don't know of any other FOSS
browser/etc. suites with Windows ports that are any good. If Mozilla
is going bad, there's nowhere to turn that isn't proprietary and
either expensive (Opera), spammy (Opera Light), or evil (MSIE and OE).
Unless it just sucks (all kinds of two-bit browsers, Eudora, Free
Agent, etc., many of which are also proprietary though free-as-in-
beer, and all kinds of crummy Windows ports of Unix apps whose native
UI is so different that they all speak Windows with a thick, often
unintelligible accent - starting, of course, with everyone's favorite
whipping boy, emacs).

 

[Lew]

I'm pretty sure what you read
as 2.0.0.5 is the year in the build number.

You DARE to attack me?! What is your problem anyway? If you dislike me
so much why not killfile me? Why publicly insult me instead?

Not at all. I am simply stating a fact - that your assertion about my
behavior was not correct. This is an objective statement, and not at all a
reflection on you.

Impossible.

Here is a clipboard copy from the Thunderbird "about" screenlet, pasted into
my Usenet post unedited and unchanged from how Thunderbird displays it:

<quote>
version 2.0.0.5 (20070719)
</quote>

 

[Patricia Shanahan]

Twisted wrote:
....

Also, the version number you gave cannot be correct.

....

http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/thunderbird/ has a prominent button labeled
"Download Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 ...".

Patricia

 

[Lew]

Also, the version number you gave cannot be correct. It would mean
there's a newer version than the one I'm using, but my copy is ....
Either you and Lew are inventing a bogus newer version, presumably as
part of some elaborate gag intended to insult me, or the update
notification functionality is broken (perhaps by a bug in the last
update it did notify me about?) ....
Nevertheless, I don't like being lied to, and apparently somebody *is*
lying to me. Either you and Lew are mistaken, you and Lew are lying,

How dare you impugn my integrity, sir? I challenge you to meet me on the
field of honor at dawn.

Just kidding, dude - but you should know I wouldn't lie to you. There's no
percentage in it for me.

See for yourself - look closely at the version number on their website:
<http://www.mozilla.com/thunderbird/>

And watch how flippantly you go about impugning people's integrity, there,
buddy. My goodness, if anyone knows how important it is to maintain honor,
isn't it you, Twisted? And it's worse for me - people know my real name here.
At least, my given one, although it's no big deal to get the rest.

You have been one of the strongest proponents of good behavior in the
newsgroups, Twisted - I invite you to lead by example.

 

[Patricia Shanahan]

This is very odd. Assuming there's no conspiracy here, Lew also isn't
getting update notifications automatically. Which would seem to mean
that notification of updates stopped, without fanfare, a little less
than two years ago.

I have received update notices throughout the last two years, including
offers to upgrade to Thunderbird 2.0. I don't think they do automatic
installation of major new versions.

In the current version of Thunderbird, updating is controlled through
Tools - Options - Advanced.

Patricia

 

[Martin Gregorie]

This is very odd. Assuming there's no conspiracy here, Lew also isn't
getting update notifications automatically. Which would seem to mean
that notification of updates stopped, without fanfare, a little less
than two years ago.

Maybe its just buggy update notification. I'm on 2.0.0.6 as well: the
notification just popped up a couple of weeks ago when I started
Thunderbird.

I've suspected for some time that it might be flaky: it never worked
for v 1.5 and is either intermittent for v2.0 or Thunderbird updates are
rather infrequent.