4321 - Test Post - Please Ignore - Mandrake

This is a discussion on 4321 - Test Post - Please Ignore - Mandrake ; 4321 - Test Post - Please Ignore...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 24

Thread: 4321 - Test Post - Please Ignore

  1. 4321 - Test Post - Please Ignore

    4321 - Test Post - Please Ignore

  2. Re: 4321 - Test Post - Please Ignore

    On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 11:56:26 GMT, SD Tester wrote:

    > 4321 - Test Post - Please Ignore


    One for matt_the_mouth, methinks.

    --
    Linux: because I work with Windows, and that's bad enough.
    AOLM FAQ - http://blinkynet.net/comp/faq_aolm.html
    RLU #300033 - MDV 2006 - WindowMaker 0.92.0

  3. Re: 4321 - Test Post - Please Ignore

    On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 11:56:26 GMT, SD Tester wrote:
    > 4321 - Test Post - Please Ignore


    Welcome to the group.
    Since the post showed up here, the test failed.
    Do you know about the 400+ test groups on Usenet?

    Some interesting information about test posts may be found in
    http://livinginternet.com/u/uu_test.htm

    Please use something like alt.test or misc.test
    For binary test, use something like alt.binaries.test

    For a more productive Usenet exeprience, please, read
    http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
    and http://tgos.org/newbie/index2.html

    For odd punctuation marks seen at end of text, you might look at
    http://community.the-underdogs.org/smiley/gallery.htm

    PS: Public Service Anouncement
    Please, do not respond to a troll who implies I have lied in this post.
    It is beyond him to understand the definition of lied.
    http://dictionary.cambridge.org/defi...5936&dict=CALD

  4. Re: 4321 - Test Post - Please Ignore

    On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 11:56:26 +0000, SD Tester wrote:

    > 4321 - Test Post - Please Ignore


    Oh...... no.

    --
    "Ubuntu" - an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".


  5. Re: 4321 - Test Post - Please Ignore

    On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 07:31:15 -0600, Bit Twister wrote:

    >> 4321 - Test Post - Please Ignore


    > Welcome to the group.
    > Since the post showed up here, the test failed.


    You evil bastard.


    --
    "Ubuntu" - an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".


  6. Re: 4321 - Test Post - Please Ignore

    On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 12:12:16 +0000, Dave wrote:

    > On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 11:56:26 GMT, SD Tester wrote:
    >
    >> 4321 - Test Post - Please Ignore

    >
    > One for matt_the_mouth, methinks.
    >


    What makes you think that it isn't he?

    --
    Neil
    'The moving finger writes and having writ still makes the same mistakes'.
    swap 'ra' and delete 'l' for email

  7. Re: 4321 - Test Post - Please Ignore

    On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 10:22:14 -0600, Neil Ellwood wrote:
    >> One for matt_the_mouth, methinks.
    >>

    >
    > What makes you think that it isn't he?


    You could tell PAN to keep an eye on the
    NNTP-Posting-Host: field in the header.

    SD's ip is 86.133.83.94 located somewhere around Letchworth, England.

    Matt Left Coast's normally is 64.121.4.34, unless it has changed,
    located some where around Redwood City, California.

  8. Re: 4321 - Test Post - Please Ignore

    Bit Twister wrote:
    > On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 10:22:14 -0600, Neil Ellwood wrote:
    >>> One for matt_the_mouth, methinks.
    >>>

    >> What makes you think that it isn't he?

    >
    > You could tell PAN to keep an eye on the
    > NNTP-Posting-Host: field in the header.
    >
    > SD's ip is 86.133.83.94 located somewhere around Letchworth, England.
    >
    > Matt Left Coast's normally is 64.121.4.34, unless it has changed,
    > located some where around Redwood City, California.


    OK guys.. I sent the test here this morning because my posts to
    alt.os.linux.slackware are not showing up on google groups, but they are
    on my local server. I wanted another group in alt.os.linux to see if
    they showed via google groups as well as my local usenet server.

    So.. that being said, my posts did show up on both my local ISP's usenet
    server as well as google groups, but my post to alt.os.linux.slackware
    did not appear on google groups, but it did appear on my ISP's server.

    What would this be telling me?

    Thanks to anybody that can help...

  9. Re: 4321 - Test Post - Please Ignore

    On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 17:15:56 +0000, SD Tester wrote:

    > So.. that being said, my posts did show up on both my local ISP's usenet
    > server as well as google groups, but my post to alt.os.linux.slackware
    > did not appear on google groups, but it did appear on my ISP's server.
    >
    > What would this be telling me?


    There is a (variable) amount of delay in posts showing up at GG. This is
    probably what's happening here. I'll bet those posts are there by the
    time you read this...

    > Thanks to anybody that can help...


    Welcome.

    --
    "Ubuntu" - an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".


  10. Re: 4321 - Test Post - Please Ignore

    On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 10:31:53 -0600, Bit Twister wrote:

    > On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 10:22:14 -0600, Neil Ellwood wrote:
    >>> One for matt_the_mouth, methinks.
    >>>

    >>
    >> What makes you think that it isn't he?

    >
    > You could tell PAN to keep an eye on the
    > NNTP-Posting-Host: field in the header.
    >
    > SD's ip is 86.133.83.94 located somewhere around Letchworth, England.
    >
    > Matt Left Coast's normally is 64.121.4.34, unless it has changed,
    > located some where around Redwood City, California.


    I know , but he tells us that he is so good. :-)

    --
    Neil
    'The moving finger writes and having writ still makes the same mistakes'.
    swap 'ra' and delete 'l' for email

  11. Re: 4321 - Test Post - Please Ignore

    On Friday 24 November 2006 17:22, Neil Ellwood stood up and addressed the
    masses in /alt.os.linux.mandrake/ as follows...:

    > On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 12:12:16 +0000, Dave wrote:
    >
    >> On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 11:56:26 GMT, SD Tester wrote:
    >>
    >>> 4321 - Test Post - Please Ignore

    >>
    >> One for matt_the_mouth, methinks.
    >>

    >
    > What makes you think that it isn't he?


    It's posted from Windows and under another pseudonym. Now I can't say that
    I'm too appreciative of Matt, but to my knowledge, neither the nymshifting
    nor the posting from Glassware would be his style... ;-)

    By the way, did y'all notice that the Flame Thread(TM) has been quiet for a
    few days already? ;-)

    --
    With kind regards,

    *Aragorn*
    (registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

  12. Re: 4321 - Test Post - Please Ignore

    SD Tester wrote:

    > 4321 - Test Post - Please Ignore


    Welcome to the group. If your test post was intended for
    alt.os.linux.mandrake it was indeed successful. Regretfully there are those
    that will tell a lie [1][2] and say that it failed. I suggest you consider
    for yourself why someone would claim a successful post is a failure and
    judge there comments accordingly.

    [1] The defintion I use for "tell a lie" is:

    http://dictionary.cambridge.org/defi...1791&dict=CALD

    "tell a lie/lies
    to say something/things that are not true"

    Anyone that claims I meant anything other than "to say something/things that
    are not true" is not being truthful. Note the definition I use does NOT
    REQUIRE deceit either intended or otherwise.

    [2] The definition I use for "lie" is:

    "lie
    noun [C]
    something that you say which you know is not true"

    Again anyone that claims I meant something other than "something that you
    say which you know is not true" is not being truthful. Note I use the NOUN
    form of lie, NOT THE VERB, anyone trying to claim that I used the verb form
    is trying to claim I said something I did not. Again, the definition I use
    does not require deceit either intended or otherwise. Again, I suggest you
    consider why someone would do such a thing and judge their posts
    accordingly.

    I used "tell a lie" to impart a specific meaning, I included the
    clarifications here because there are those that try to claim I am saying
    something I am not saying.

  13. Re: 4321 - Test Post - Please Ignore

    Neil Ellwood wrote:

    >> Matt Left Coast's normally is 64.121.4.34, unless it has changed,
    >> located some where around Redwood City, California.

    >
    > I know , but he tells us that he is so good. :-)
    >


    Of course I am. That is why I am trying to tell the person the Truth about
    their test posts. Why people here are so afraid of a simple truth is beyond
    me.

  14. Re: 4321 - Test Post - Please Ignore

    Bit Twister wrote:

    > PS: Public Service Anouncement
    > Please, do not respond to a troll who implies I have lied in this post.
    > It is beyond him to understand the definition of lied.
    > http://dictionary.cambridge.org/defi...5936&dict=CALD


    Again, I do not use the term lied. I used the phrase "tell a lie" which as a
    different meaning:

    The definition I use for "tell a lie" is:

    http://dictionary.cambridge.org/defi...1791&dict=CALD

    "tell a lie/lies
    to say something/things that are not true"

    Clearly a different definition. I do not have trouble understanding the
    definition of lied, Bit has trouble understanding that there is a different
    definition for "tell a lie" and "lie" (noun form of the word) than "lied".

  15. Re: 4321 - Test Post - Please Ignore

    On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 17:52:41 -0800, left_coast wrote:

    > Again, I do not use the term lied. I used the phrase "tell a lie" which as a
    > different meaning:


    Yes you are correct in what you "said", but it is beyone your ability to
    understand the fact, that to create a lie (noun) you have to have lied
    (verb) first.

    You can not truthfully have me creating objects (nouns) without
    preforming the activity (verb).

    This is the end of our discussion.


  16. Re: 4321 - Test Post - Please Ignore

    Bit Twister wrote:

    >> Again, I do not use the term lied. I used the phrase "tell a lie" which
    >> as a different meaning:

    >
    > Yes you are correct in what you "said", but it is beyone your ability to
    > understand the fact, that to create a lie (noun) you have to have lied
    > (verb) first.


    No, you "TELL A LIE":

    http://dictionary.cambridge.org/defi...1791&dict=CALD

    I deliberately did not use the VERB form to avoid the meaning of the verb.
    The dictionary allows for this by having a specific definition for "tell a
    lie" that is different than lied.

    In other words to "tell a lie" is different then to lie. The first is to
    state something that is not true, the second is to try to deceive. I used
    the FIRST which is defined as:

    http://dictionary.cambridge.org/defi...1791&dict=CALD

    It is clear that you can not understand the difference between "tell a lie"
    and lied, that is the only real issue here.

  17. Re: 4321 - Test Post - Please Ignore

    Bit Twister wrote:

    > You can not truthfully have me creating objects (nouns) without
    > preforming the activity (verb).
    >


    Yes, I can, at least according to Cambridge, I can use the phrase "tell a
    lie" which allows for the creation of the object (lie [noun]) without
    performing the activity (lie [verb]) the verb in this case is "TELL". The
    definition I use simply states that you tell something that is not true.

    "Tell a lie" does not require the verb "lie".

  18. Re: 4321 - Test Post - Please Ignore

    Bit Twister wrote:

    > On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 17:52:41 -0800, left_coast wrote:
    >
    >> Again, I do not use the term lied. I used the phrase "tell a lie" which
    >> as a different meaning:

    >
    > Yes you are correct in what you "said", but it is beyone your ability to
    > understand the fact, that to create a lie (noun) you have to have lied
    > (verb) first.
    >
    > You can not truthfully have me creating objects (nouns) without
    > preforming the activity (verb).


    BTW, according to Websters on-line dictionary "b" definition of lie, the
    noun, the speaker does not even need to believe the statement is true or
    not.

    "b : an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true
    by the speaker"

    If the speaker believes the statement to be true, then he is not trying to
    deceive, yet the statement can still be a lie according to Websters. So, a
    lie can be told without lying.

    >
    > This is the end of our discussion.


    Of course it is, you once again spew a bunch of inaccurate information and
    run away, refusing to take responsibility for what you said.



  19. Re: 4321 - Test Post - Please Ignore

    left_coast wrote:
    > SD Tester wrote:
    >
    >> 4321 - Test Post - Please Ignore

    >
    > Welcome to the group. If your test post was intended for
    > alt.os.linux.mandrake it was indeed successful. Regretfully there are those
    > that will tell a lie [1][2] and say that it failed. I suggest you consider
    > for yourself why someone would claim a successful post is a failure and
    > judge there comments accordingly.
    >
    > [1] The defintion I use for "tell a lie" is:
    >
    > http://dictionary.cambridge.org/defi...1791&dict=CALD
    >
    > "tell a lie/lies
    > to say something/things that are not true"
    >
    > Anyone that claims I meant anything other than "to say something/things that
    > are not true" is not being truthful. Note the definition I use does NOT
    > REQUIRE deceit either intended or otherwise.
    >
    > [2] The definition I use for "lie" is:
    >
    > "lie
    > noun [C]
    > something that you say which you know is not true"
    >
    > Again anyone that claims I meant something other than "something that you
    > say which you know is not true" is not being truthful. Note I use the NOUN
    > form of lie, NOT THE VERB, anyone trying to claim that I used the verb form
    > is trying to claim I said something I did not. Again, the definition I use
    > does not require deceit either intended or otherwise. Again, I suggest you
    > consider why someone would do such a thing and judge their posts
    > accordingly.
    >
    > I used "tell a lie" to impart a specific meaning, I included the
    > clarifications here because there are those that try to claim I am saying
    > something I am not saying.


    Has anybody ever told you how incredibly boring you are?

  20. Re: 4321 - Test Post - Please Ignore

    Bill Pfeifer wrote:

    > left_coast wrote:
    >> SD Tester wrote:
    >>
    >>> 4321 - Test Post - Please Ignore

    >>
    >> Welcome to the group. If your test post was intended for
    >> alt.os.linux.mandrake it was indeed successful. Regretfully there are
    >> those that will tell a lie [1][2] and say that it failed. I suggest you
    >> consider for yourself why someone would claim a successful post is a
    >> failure and judge there comments accordingly.
    >>
    >> [1] The defintion I use for "tell a lie" is:
    >>
    >> http://dictionary.cambridge.org/defi...1791&dict=CALD
    >>
    >> "tell a lie/lies
    >> to say something/things that are not true"
    >>
    >> Anyone that claims I meant anything other than "to say something/things
    >> that are not true" is not being truthful. Note the definition I use does
    >> NOT REQUIRE deceit either intended or otherwise.
    >>
    >> [2] The definition I use for "lie" is:
    >>
    >> "lie
    >> noun [C]
    >> something that you say which you know is not true"
    >>
    >> Again anyone that claims I meant something other than "something that you
    >> say which you know is not true" is not being truthful. Note I use the
    >> NOUN form of lie, NOT THE VERB, anyone trying to claim that I used the
    >> verb form is trying to claim I said something I did not. Again, the
    >> definition I use does not require deceit either intended or otherwise.
    >> Again, I suggest you consider why someone would do such a thing and judge
    >> their posts accordingly.
    >>
    >> I used "tell a lie" to impart a specific meaning, I included the
    >> clarifications here because there are those that try to claim I am saying
    >> something I am not saying.

    >
    > Has anybody ever told you how incredibly boring you are?


    Then don't read what I have to say. The simple fact is, I am correct in what
    I say. It is regrettable that you feel the need to make this about
    something other than the message at hand, there are way to many people
    already here doing just that. And yes, it is boring trying to constantly
    correct the miss-information spread by my detractors.
    --
    In prep for a move and the need to be more mobile, I have changed my usenet
    server. If anyone has any filters based on my posting host, you should
    update them now.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast