From: bd@thedragons.lair
Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> Black Dragon wrote:
>> Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
>>
>>> Second, they do _not_ prevent their data from being archived. Anyone
>>> can, and often will, quote them as desired. So what they achieve is
>>> that until the end of the world, or until Google is terminated or
>>> fundamentally changed, whichever occurs first, their messages will
>>> appear as quotations so that people who find them will lack the
>>> possibility of checking what the context was, what the full article
>>> was, whether the quotation was somehow changed, etc.
>> Wrong. What they achieve is *their* articles not being archived. What
>> part of that cannot people understand?
> How funny. You post with a fake name, forged address, and you regard it
> as precious to prevent your words from being archived as your posting,
> not caring about the _exactly same_ data being archived in different
> ways.
The name's not fake, I've been using the same 'nym for years.
The address isn't forged since it is not a valid domain to begin with.
You're assuming that I don't want my words archived because I use XNA.
You know what they say about assumptions, so you should know better.
Three swings, three strikes. Now *that's* funny!
Ever consider that some people might have issues with the fact that Google
doesn't archive complete posts, and that there is no functionality to
search headers as there was with DejaNews?
Didn't think so.
And as for Google not being an NNTP service, just how do you think articles
are received and sent from there? Do they go in an out as magic pixie dust,
or what?
--
Black Dragon /"\\ ASCII ribbon
campaign
\\ / against HTML mail
and
Hell, rocket science isn't even rocket science. X postings.
A NASA Rocket Scientist; Undernet; circa 1996 / \\
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
