On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 10:35:39 PM UTC-5, Quinn C wrote:
> * Peter T. Daniels:
> > On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 4:49:46 PM UTC-5, Quinn C wrote:
> >> * Peter T. Daniels:
> >>> On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 12:47:15 PM UTC-5, Quinn C wrote:
> >>>> * Snidely:
> >>>>> Quinn C is guilty of <firstname.lastname@example.org> as of
> >>>>> 2/14/2018 3:13:55 PM
> >>>>>> "There was this dog, its name was Fido, and he yapped incessantly."
> >>>>> If you sent a CANCEL, you can't count on servers honoring it.
> >>>> Just assume that I know as much about the matter as you.
> >>>> I sent a Supersede (to which you answered), which is generally more
> >>>> useful than a Cancel, and I use Cancel-Lock/Cancel-Key, so on most
> >>>> servers it's going to be honored. I know for the three big German ones:
> >>>> Individual, Eternal-September, Albasani. Google doesn't, to no
> >>>> surprise.
> >>> Messages canceled in GG are not visible to GG users. There is a note "This
> >>> message was canceled."
> >> Which proves that it's an entity to itself and not part of Usenet.
> > Apparently other access devices do exactly the same thing. We had such a
> > complaint this morning. The word "supersede" was involved.
> > Oh, look. It was _you_.
> >> Would I ask you to cancel your article on the 10 most important Usenet
> >> servers, one by one?
> > No, you're not _that_ strange.
> >>> It's no surprise that you don't know what you're talking about when
> >>> you criticize GG.
> >> GG can do whatever it wants, but when people use it to participate in
> >> Usenet, it's clunky.
> >> Usenet is a system with federated servers. That word should mean
> >> something to you. Google is a renegade state that wants to participate
> >> without following the federal rules.
> > "Federated"? I think not.
> > Where is the Usenet Legislature that enacts laws?
> > Where is the Usenet President
> > that executes them? Where is the Usenet Judiciary that interprets them?
> That's not how this federated system works, but I'm not going to try to
> explain, for two reasons:
Then it wasn't an apt analogy, and "federated" is still the wrong word.
> - It's way over your head,
> - You have shown in the past that you have a vested interest in not
> acknowledging the facts in this matter (for reasons I fail to grasp.)
eh? I find nothing wrong with GG, except for the "posting limit" (which I think is because
of inadequate snipping) and not being able to see the list of crossposted ngs.