Need help with perl script using threads.

[Jürgen Exner]

Wow and you are a regular newsgroups user?

Well, only for about the last 15 years or so...

Look at the thread tree on
the left frame , as you can see the posts of the thread are numbered.

Funny. On my newsreader the left "frame" contains a list of email
boxes/accounts that I am using and a list of newsgroups. There is no such
thing as a "thread tree".

See it yet

No, I don't see it. It doesn't exist on my newsreader.

or do you need some more "context" or some "perl code" to
clarify , after all the guidelines state that that is neccessary.

Is there a possibility that maybe you are mistaking a newsgroup archive,
that formerly was known as DejaNews, and it's crude web based interface as a
newsreader?

jue

 

[axel]

Wow and you are a regular newsgroups user? Look at the thread tree on
the left frame , as you can see the posts of the thread are numbered.

What frame?

Most people on here are regular newsgroups readers.

Do you not realise that (unless specifically saved) news articles
expire... how many news articles do you think have appeared in
comp.lang.perl.misc over the years? Or that different servers receive
different articles in different orders?

See it yet or do you need some more "context" or some "perl code" to
clarify , after all the guidelines state that that is neccessary.

If we do not see context, why should we be bothered to look up previous
articles.

Axel

 

[Tad McClellan]

I don't think you read most the complete thread otherwise you wouldn't
go off repeating points other people made already.

I don't think you know how the medium that you are using works.

Do you understand how Usenet postings are propogated to tens
of thousands of computers around the world? (rhetorical question
as the answer is obvious.)

Google is not Usenet, most people do NOT access Usenet via Google.
Usenet was around for over a decade before even the WWW was invented.

If GG is your only exposure to news, then you also don't know
how most people here view and read news.

It is not possible for you to know what articles have made it
to *my* ISP's newserver, nor in what order they have arrived,
nor what order I have read them in.

You don't know how articles are distributed and you don't know
how articles are viewed. That puts you in a very difficult
position if your aim is to tell us that we've been doing it
wrong all of these years.

Either way you sound like one of the people who miss the bigger picture
and love to hear yourself talk.

And you sound like one of the people that talk about things that
they know nothing about.

I think all the rules and guideline

The guidelines did not "come first", the rules came first, then
I wrote them down.

Usenet is its own little society with its own set of what is
socially acceptable to that society, generally known as "netiquette".

If you have not participated in an Usenet newsgroup regularly for
at least a few months, then you know nothing of this foreign
society's rules.

I thought it would be helpful for posters who wanted to maximize
their chances of getting their question answered if these unwritten
rules became written rules.

It seems quite clear that you are not in the target audience that
the guidelines were designed for, so an impedance mismatch is
not very surprising.

for which only a
double digit IQ will suffice.

Stooping to ad hominem is yet another violation of the society's
rules, it hurts your position when you argue against the person
rather than against the person's ideas.

(sounds you me like the trees are covering the forest).

Sounds to me like you are offering a dissertation on a subject
that you don't know much about.

I suggest you take a pause and find out a bit about the dynamic
of a successfule Usenet newsgroup before attempting to get
thousands of people to change from their way to your way.



[ snip a whole stinking pile of TOFU ]

 

[Tad McClellan]

Are you?



You are not a regular newsgroups user, as they mostly access
news via a purpose-built program for reading news called
a "newsreader".

So you don't know what can be seen unless you use the same newsreader.

If we do not see context, why should we be bothered to look up previous
articles.

Take a pragmatic look Rob.

There are lots and lots of posts here each day, nobody has time
to read or answer them all.

Why choose to spend that time on someone who makes it harder when
there is a "next poster" that makes it easier?

If you don't quote context, many potential answerers will simply
move on to the next question.


Your feet stink. Can I borrow a dollar?

You sure are looking sharp today. Can I borrow a dollar?


Which would be more effective?

Do you want an answer or not?

If you do, then do what it takes to give you the best chance of getting one.

 

[r_stringer66]

I never claimed to be an expert. All I know is that I just use my
regular webbrowser and usually the threads are in a tree on the left
frame. Now I don't really care why and how but that's just a way it is
and for you expereinced users out there you should know all the
different varieties once can use the groups and not assume everyone is
using your way.

I don't think you know how the medium that you are using works.

Do you understand how Usenet postings are propogated to tens
of thousands of computers around the world? (rhetorical question
as the answer is obvious.)

Google is not Usenet, most people do NOT access Usenet via Google.
Usenet was around for over a decade before even the WWW was invented.

If GG is your only exposure to news, then you also don't know
how most people here view and read news.

It is not possible for you to know what articles have made it
to *my* ISP's newserver, nor in what order they have arrived,
nor what order I have read them in.

You don't know how articles are distributed and you don't know
how articles are viewed. That puts you in a very difficult
position if your aim is to tell us that we've been doing it
wrong all of these years.

Again you solidify my point that you love to show off your knowledge,
you know lots about newsgroup, good for you

And you sound like one of the people that talk about things that
they know nothing about.




The guidelines did not "come first", the rules came first, then
I wrote them down.

I agree and I have already stated in previous posts that I will make a
bigger effort to add more detail, but you did not read that post did
you?

I thought it would be helpful for posters who wanted to maximize
their chances of getting their question answered if these unwritten
rules became written rules.

It seems quite clear that you are not in the target audience that
the guidelines were designed for, so an impedance mismatch is
not very surprising.

You stooped to that level long time ago when you allow yourself to
accuse people of being ignorant users and taking that offensive tone of
voice , when in previous points I have shown myself accepting of
constructive criticism on this matter.

Stooping to ad hominem is yet another violation of the society's
rules, it hurts your position when you argue against the person
rather than against the person's ideas.

Not as much as you but enough to have been a successful user

Sounds to me like you are offering a dissertation on a subject
that you don't know much about.

No I am not trying to change anyone's ways. I asked the simple
question, it was NOT code relatd , I got my answers. You and your
usenet police buddies just kept attacking me in a very offensive
manner, and you call that netiquette? And the sad about you and those
people who don't have better things to do , is the fact that you think
I am not willing to improve the ways I make a post which I do ,a gain
read previous posts. The difference is some people like Ignoramus are
kind enough to take a nice tone and explain why and how things work,
and there people like you and some others who are just crude , cynical
and use these opportunities to boast their knowldege about the subject.
For your kind of people it's actually not about making people learn
it's just about you and making yourself important. Well you and your
buddies can keep sending posts on this matter , ganging up on, me which
makes it very evident that one of you is probably not enough. But let
me tell you in very simple,maybe programatic way what I have a problem
with and what not:

Constructive Critissm -> Rob likes , will follow
Advise handed down in sarcastic, rude , condenseding manner -> Rob
dislkies

I suggest you take a pause and find out a bit about the dynamic
of a successfule Usenet newsgroup before attempting to get
thousands of people to change from their way to your way.

Who is stooping low now? Practise what you preach

[ snip a whole stinking pile of TOFU ]

Have you figured out the main point of my little composition yet. You
said it correctly before, it's all about netiquette.

 

[Jürgen Exner]

I never claimed to be an expert. All I know is that I just use my
regular webbrowser and usually the threads are in a tree on the left
frame. Now I don't really care why and how but that's just a way it is
and for you expereinced users out there you should know all the
different varieties once can use the groups and not assume everyone is
using your way.

You don't get it, do you?
Those 'rules' and 'guidelines' aka nettiquette are exactly designed to
support many different ways. There are dozens of different newreaders and
the fact that Google now provides even a web interface is a proof of how
adaptable Usenet is.

However, it is _you_ who is breaking this compatibility. It is _you_ who is
making assumptions about posts being numbered. It is _you_ who assumes all
newsreaders would display posts in a certain sequence. Is is _you_ who
assumes that older postings would still be visible after they have been read
earlier (hous, days or months ago).

It is _you_ who assumes that Usenet posts would
(a) arrive at all
(b) arrive at the same time worldwide
(c) arrive in the same sequence worldwide
(b) be visible to all readers worldwide
- in the same sequence
- with the same filtered/hidden settings
- and the same sorting order

None of this is true.

It is up to you if you want to be read by only those who happen to stumble
across your posts in the Usenet archive at Google (and Google is doing a
good job there although I prefered DejaNews) or if you want to participate
in the much, much broader spectrum of what has been the Usenet for decades.

jue

 

[r_stringer66]

You don't get it, do you?

No I think YOU don't get it.......

However, it is _you_ who is breaking this compatibility. It is _you_ who is
making assumptions about posts being numbered. It is _you_ who assumes all
newsreaders would display posts in a certain sequence. Is is _you_ who
assumes that older postings would still be visible after they have been read
earlier (hous, days or months ago).

It is _you_ who assumes that Usenet posts would
(a) arrive at all
(b) arrive at the same time worldwide
(c) arrive in the same sequence worldwide
(b) be visible to all readers worldwide
- in the same sequence
- with the same filtered/hidden settings
- and the same sorting order

None of this is true.

It's is you who doesn't understand that i have already acknowledget
that.

agian take a second and listen :I DID ACKNOWLEGE THAT , 20 posts ago,
go back and read it.

It's is you who is being sarcastic and therefore lack netiquette
It's is you who doesn't grasp that I don't mind the advise but the
manner in which it was handed to me
It's you who assumes that everone knows how news groups work in detail

And finally it's you who can't think out of the box.

It is up to you if you want to be read by only those who happen to stumble
across your posts in the Usenet archive at Google (and Google is doing a
good job there although I prefered DejaNews) or if you want to participate
in the much, much broader spectrum of what has been the Usenet for decades.

jue

Thanks you , and for the thousandst time I do ACKNOWLEDGE that and I
will make a greater effort.

 

[Henry Law]

Wow and you are a regular newsgroups user? Look at the thread tree on
the left frame , as you can see the posts of the thread are numbered.
See it yet or do you need some more "context" or some "perl code" to
clarify , after all the guidelines state that that is neccessary.

Let me explain, stringer. There's this other world called USENET,
where you've never been. There are people out there who use (pause
for effect) ... other software ... to read newsgroups and post to
them. This other software comes in many many different forms, but as
a class these programs are called newsreaders, and most of them aren't
produced by Microsoft.

The fact that you use your web browser to get at them, courtesy of the
Google company, is your choice; IMO it's a poor choice but you're
entitled to use it/ However, don't do others the discourtesy of
assuming that we use the same software.

 

[Chris Mattern]

No I think YOU don't get it.......


It's is you who doesn't understand that i have already acknowledget
that.

agian take a second and listen :I DID ACKNOWLEGE THAT , 20 posts ago,
go back and read it.

No, you haven't. You've mouthed some words, but your actions speak
louder, and they show a singular lack of understanding.

It's is you who is being sarcastic and therefore lack netiquette
It's is you who doesn't grasp that I don't mind the advise but the
manner in which it was handed to me
It's you who assumes that everone knows how news groups work in detail

No, we don't. That's why we try to advise people on the standards
when they do things that screw up people with certain common
configurations.

And finally it's you who can't think out of the box.

There's "thinking out of the box", and then there's, "no, that
doesn't work." You seem to be firmly in the latter.

Thanks you , and for the thousandst time I do ACKNOWLEDGE that and I
will make a greater effort.

Words, words, words. Action would be appreciated, not words.

--
Christopher Mattern

"Which one you figure tracked us?"
"The ugly one, sir."
"...Could you be more specific?"

 

[Chris Marshall]

I don't think you know how the medium that you are using works.

I think that I fall into this category too in that, whilst I clearly
know more than Mr. Stringe,
I am definitely reliant on Google/groups for posting to usenet and
would rather not be.

Can you recommend any alternatives ? (and that are likely to work from
a corporate internet connection).

I've posted to this group via google for many years and had a lot of
extremely useful advice (often from you) - I'd would rather
not lose this "resource" if I can help it. And if posting via google is
prejudicing my chance of a reply then I am
happy to migrate to something else.

Thanks
Christian

 

[A. Sinan Unur]

....
I am definitely reliant on Google/groups for posting to usenet and
would rather not be.

Can you recommend any alternatives ? (and that are likely to work from
a corporate internet connection).

That is hard for us to do, given that we do not know your company's
policy on reading UseNet groups.

On the other hand, if they have a blanket prohibition against UseNet
groups, accessing Google Groups violates that as well (even though it
might technically be possible for you to do so).

Assuming access per se does not violate your company's policy, but you
simply lack the resources, people have suggested

<URL: http://dotsrc.org/usenet/>

to look into for free access to UseNet. For a newsreader that does not
need any privileges to install, you might want to consider X
<URL: http://xnews.newsguy.com/>

If you do need to be able to access UseNet groups to be able to do your
job, you should be able to make the case for the company providing you
with the means to access it.

Now, I am sure we all appreciate the effort you are making, but all this
is a rather off-topic discussion.

Sinan

 

[Sherm Pendley]

If you do need to be able to access UseNet groups to be able to do your
job, you should be able to make the case for the company providing you
with the means to access it.

Note that this doesn't necessarily mean opening port 119 in the
corporate firewall to allow access to any arbitrary external news service.

Your company might be better served by creating an internal nntp server,
and selectively carrying a few usenet groups on that. It could carry
some private groups in addition.

sherm--

 

[Tad McClellan]

I think that I fall into this category too in that, whilst I clearly
know more than Mr. Stringe,
I am definitely reliant on Google/groups for posting to usenet and
would rather not be.


if posting via google is
prejudicing my chance of a reply then I am
happy to migrate to something else.

In the meantime, I've scored you up enough to mask out the GG
score (but you still hit the less-radical *@hotmail.com rule).