|
Sprinkler Systems
Uhaul move
Lawn care
Roses and trees
Ford Parts
Chrysler Parts
Lake Powell
New IPod Touch Apps
New IPhone Apps
IPhone Apps
IPad Information
IPad Apps
Android APPS
Android Games APPS
Android Systems
Android Tablets APPS and Beyond
Smartphone Apps
Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools
Tablet PC
Car Sharing Car Leasing
Tabler Pc
Fly Fishing
Toyota Cars
Vacation Rentals
Stock market
NYSE
SSE Stock
Freight & Shipping News
Gluten
Lactose
Gout
My Coupon Life
Campgrounds Check
Outdoor
Kitchen Design and Redoo
Bath Remodeling
Palm Springs
Las Vegas Vacation Tipps
Lake Powell Boating
Homes for lease
Electric and green Car Blog
Pearls and diamonds
Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App
Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
|
Fantasy » alt.fan.tolkien » Tolkien's scholarly accomplishments
| Re: The Thread That Runs So True: Google, the Usenet & Ancient Threads [message #300404 ] |
Do, 13 Juli 2006 23:59 |
|
cbstewart3rd [at] yahoo.com <cbstewart3rd [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
> Steuard Jensen wrote:
>> [Regarding the practice of resurrecting old threads rather than
>> starting new ones.]
>>
>> Quoth Stan Brown <the_stan_brown [at] fastmail.fm> in article
>> <MPG.1f194dd0fb4cb6fb98a5b5 [at] news.individual.net>:
>>> That said, I would appreciate seeing comments from others.
>>
>> Having said that, here are a handful of concerns that come to my mind
>> regarding thread resurrection:
>>
>> 1. Finding context is inconvenient. Yes, context is available on
>> Google, but most of us don't post from there (nor do we keep years
>> of local archives). So most of us are only likely to look at the
>> context that's quoted in the first "resurrection" post.
>
> That's not an argument against "thread resurrection". That's an
> argument against avoiding use of Google. Some of us *do* read and post
> from Google precisely because it enables us to coveniently check
> nearly every relevant past discussion in Usenet before posting an
> error, a redundancy, or an under-informed remark.
<snip>
Unfortunately I only have time to respond to this particular point in
this fascinating discussion.
I believe Google Groups only allows threads to be replied to if the last
post was less than a month ago. This suggests that there are good
reasons for limiting the scope of resurrecting threads, though I am in
general supportive of the resurrections that Morgoth's Curse has
initiated.
One reason for not allowing resurrection via the Google Groups archive
can be illustrated by what happened (I think I have the timing right)
when they launched the beta version of Google Groups. People suddenly
found that it was possible to reply to any old thread.
This led to people posting inane replies to the oldest archived threads,
dating back to the 1980s. These threads, of great historical interest,
were thus vandalised by later authors.
Though, in fact, I believe that if you copy old messages complete with
headers (though I believe Google Groups doesn't release all the headers
of a post to the viewable website area), then you can trick a normal
newsreader into thinking it is replying to a post in a (possibly very
old) thread, and this can still propagate across Usenet. Though I'm 99%
sure there is some reason why this can't happen.
Anyway, I think resurrecting posts 2-3 years later is the upper limit.
After that, I agree that they should be left in peace, and a new thread
started with a link to the old one. Leave the historians to make the
link between the two separate threads.
Christopher
--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard
|
|
|
| Re: The Thread That Runs So True: Google, the Usenet & Ancient Threads [message #300408 ] |
Fr, 14 Juli 2006 14:01 |
|
On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 13:11:28 -0400, Stan Brown
<the_stan_brown [at] fastmail.fm> wrote:
>Sun, 09 Jul 2006 15:19:50 GMT from Morgoth's Curse <morgothscurse2002
> [at] nospam.yahoo.com>:
>> You are also the only
>> one who repeatedly criticized my posts strictly on the basis of a
>> perceived time lag.
>
>Read more carefully: I criticized the combination of the time lag and
>your decision to resurrect at least one thread strictly to take a
>slap at me.
>
>If you had actually said anything on topic that hadn't already been
>said...
The time lag is indisputable. I deemed your other complaints to be
subjective and therefore unworthy of comment in a post that was
devoted to examining the benefits of extending the time in which we
may respond to a post.
Morgoth's Curse
|
|
|
| Re: The Thread That Runs So True: Google, the Usenet & Ancient Threads [message #300409 ] |
Fr, 14 Juli 2006 14:19 |
|
On 10 Jul 2006 11:08:23 -0700, "Henriette" <heldenib [at] hotmail.com>
wrote:
>Steuard Jensen schreef:
>
>(Mercilessly snipping post;-)
>
>> So those are at least a few of my concerns about thread resurrection.
>> I'd be interested in seeing a similar list of positive points about
>> the practice, and in seeing counter-arguments to these.
>
>IMO the important thing is intent. If someone resurrects a thread to
>rekindle a flame-war, I'm against it.
Agreement on this point seems to be unanimous. :-)
>
>If someone is perfectionalistically reading every post in ABT/RABT but
>behind in time, I think he has every right to reply in his own time.
>Who are we, who skip months of posts when we feel like it, to judge? Or
>when someone thinks of a new argument in an existing discussion, why
>not fit it to an already excisting thread? I'm always delighted with a
>'deja vu'-experience when old posts are revived.
It is not so much that I am reading every post
perfectionalistcally--any thread that discusses language tends to make
my eyes glaze over, for instance--as that I have a multitude of other
obligations that cannot be neglected. In addition to my job, I must
help my elderly parents with various chores and repairs to their home;
participate as much as possible in the fields of environmental
conservation/restoration and maintain my correspondence with my family
and friends. This is complicated by my muscular dystrophy and carpal
tunnel syndrome, so I can only respond as time and health permit. I
understand only too well why it Tolkien required so much time to
finish his masterpiece. :-)
>Besides that, I think we should be careful with our 'Rules' and the
>things which 'Aren't Allowed'.
Now if you could only persuade our local Shirriff... ;-)
Morgoth's Curse
|
|
|
| Re: The Thread That Runs So True: Google, the Usenet & Ancient Threads [message #300413 ] |
Sa, 15 Juli 2006 00:38 |
|
Fri, 14 Jul 2006 12:19:23 GMT from Morgoth's Curse <morgothscurse2002
[at] nospam.yahoo.com>:
> On 10 Jul 2006 11:08:23 -0700, "Henriette" <heldenib [at] hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> >IMO the important thing is intent. If someone resurrects a thread to
> >rekindle a flame-war, I'm against it.
>
> Agreement on this point seems to be unanimous. :-)
Oh good. Then that means you won't do it again.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html
FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm
|
|
|
| Re: The Thread That Runs So True: Google, the Usenet & Ancient Threads [message #300418 ] |
Sa, 15 Juli 2006 06:29 |
|
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 18:38:14 -0400, Stan Brown
<the_stan_brown [at] fastmail.fm> wrote:
>Fri, 14 Jul 2006 12:19:23 GMT from Morgoth's Curse <morgothscurse2002
> [at] nospam.yahoo.com>:
>> On 10 Jul 2006 11:08:23 -0700, "Henriette" <heldenib [at] hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>
>> >IMO the important thing is intent. If someone resurrects a thread to
>> >rekindle a flame-war, I'm against it.
>>
>> Agreement on this point seems to be unanimous. :-)
>
>Oh good. Then that means you won't do it again.
I have five years of your posts on my computer.
Live in fear, Stan. ;-)
Morgoth's Curse
|
|
|
| Re: The Thread That Runs So True: Google, the Usenet & Ancient Threads [message #300462 ] |
So, 16 Juli 2006 14:56 |
|
Morgoth's Curse schreef:
> It is not so much that I am reading every post
> perfectionalistcally--any thread that discusses language tends to make
> my eyes glaze over, for instance--as that I have a multitude of other
> obligations that cannot be neglected. In addition to my job, I must
> help my elderly parents with various chores and repairs to their home;
> participate as much as possible in the fields of environmental
> conservation/restoration and maintain my correspondence with my family
> and friends. This is complicated by my muscular dystrophy and carpal
> tunnel syndrome, so I can only respond as time and health permit. (snip)
>
Good grief! Please do take your time. I like resurrected old threads,
others don't, but fortunately we have no Boss here and since you don't
do any harm (at the moment. In all fairness I have seen you pour some
oil on the fire, on occasion) the Lady of the Golden Words says: you
'are allowed' and even...encouraged! Everyone can ignore any thread
they like.
Henriette
|
|
|
| Re: The Thread That Runs So True: Google, the Usenet & Ancient Threads [message #304471 ] |
Fr, 21 Juli 2006 06:05 |
|
Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
> Interesting. I wonder if we can make a list of 'famous' people who have
> posted to the Tolkien newsgroups under their real names. (I also like to
> trawl Usenet sometimes searching for posts by famous people - or people
> who became famous.)
There seems to have been a post about ten years ago from a "Joe
Kruskal" (message-id <DsJIpv.3HC [at] research.att.com>), who may have
been the famous mathematician Joseph B. Kruskal. Wikipedia has an
article on him, mirrored here:
http://www.answers.com/topic/joseph-kruskal
I don't really know whether this is the same man; it looks as though
it might be.
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 19 16:50:13 CEST 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,07489 Sekunden |
