Discussion:
Quick and the Dead
(too old to reply)
b***@gmail.com
2018-01-10 18:56:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
What's it mean and what's its origin — and is that a better term than etymology?
the Omrud
2018-01-10 19:03:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
What's it mean and what's its origin — and is that a better term than etymology?
It's from the bible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_quick_and_the_dead_(idiom)

"Quick" is an old word meaning "alive2.
--
David
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2018-01-10 20:47:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by the Omrud
Post by b***@gmail.com
What's it mean and what's its origin — and is that a better term than etymology?
It's from the bible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_quick_and_the_dead_(idiom)
"Quick" is an old word meaning "alive2.
Yes. The characteristic of a living thing is that it can move in some
way.

Over the centuries the meaning of "quick" has developed from "alive" to
"moving rapidly", physically or mentally, and then to "rapid/fast/etc".
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-01-10 21:19:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by the Omrud
Post by b***@gmail.com
What's it mean and what's its origin — and is that a better term than etymology?
It's from the bible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_quick_and_the_dead_(idiom)
"Quick" is an old word meaning "alive2.
Yes. The characteristic of a living thing is that it can move in some
way.
Over the centuries the meaning of "quick" has developed from "alive" to
"moving rapidly", physically or mentally, and then to "rapid/fast/etc".
That's a pleasing looking 'evolution' but it really isn't realistic. OED has
citations for 'quick' in the sense of mental acuity from the 13th Century
and physically speedy from the very beginning of the 14th. The word's
inherent extensibility seems to be almost as old as the word itself.
Ross
2018-01-11 04:07:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by the Omrud
Post by b***@gmail.com
What's it mean and what's its origin — and is that a better term than etymology?
It's from the bible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_quick_and_the_dead_(idiom)
"Quick" is an old word meaning "alive2.
Yes. The characteristic of a living thing is that it can move in some
way.
Over the centuries the meaning of "quick" has developed from "alive" to
"moving rapidly", physically or mentally, and then to "rapid/fast/etc".
That's a pleasing looking 'evolution' but it really isn't realistic. OED has
citations for 'quick' in the sense of mental acuity from the 13th Century
and physically speedy from the very beginning of the 14th. The word's
inherent extensibility seems to be almost as old as the word itself.
In what sense is it not realistic? All you seem to be saying is that
the semantic extension begins earlier than you might think -- and
might not even have taken many centuries to emerge. Probably true.
From "alive" to "lively" (if not all the way to "speedy") might be
a very well-worn semantic pathway. Certainly we can see derivatives
from the same root (PIE *gwei-) in different branches moving in the
same direction: Greek biōtikós 'fit for life, lively', Latin vīvidus
'living, animated, lively', Russian zhivoj 'living; vivid, brisk, animated'.
Has English alone extended it to "rapid"?
Looking at the closer cognates: Dutch kwiek 'spry', German keck 'bold',
but Swedish kvick 'quick, rapid, swift'... Is this an English borrowing,
or could the "swift" sense in English be due to Norse influence?
Janet
2018-01-12 01:54:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by the Omrud
What's it mean and what's its origin ? and is that a better term than etymology?
It's from the bible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_quick_and_the_dead_(idiom)
"Quick" is an old word meaning "alive2.
Yes. The characteristic of a living thing is that it can move in some
way.
Over the centuries the meaning of "quick" has developed from "alive" to
"moving rapidly", physically or mentally, and then to "rapid/fast/etc".
"Quickening" in pregnancy, is when the mother first feels movement from
the foetus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quickening

"The word "quick" originally meant "alive". Historically, quickening
has sometimes been considered to be the beginning of the possession of
"individual life" by the fetus. British legal scholar William Blackstone
explained the subject of quickening in the eighteenth century,...."

Janet
Ken Blake
2018-01-12 18:57:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Janet
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by the Omrud
What's it mean and what's its origin ? and is that a better term than etymology?
It's from the bible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_quick_and_the_dead_(idiom)
"Quick" is an old word meaning "alive2.
Yes. The characteristic of a living thing is that it can move in some
way.
Over the centuries the meaning of "quick" has developed from "alive" to
"moving rapidly", physically or mentally, and then to "rapid/fast/etc".
"Quickening" in pregnancy, is when the mother first feels movement from
the foetus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quickening
"The word "quick" originally meant "alive". Historically, quickening
has sometimes been considered to be the beginning of the possession of
"individual life" by the fetus. British legal scholar William Blackstone
explained the subject of quickening in the eighteenth century,...."
Hor
ADPUF
2018-01-26 19:35:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 19:03:40 +0000, the Omrud
Post by the Omrud
Post by b***@gmail.com
What's it mean and what's its origin — and is that a better term than etymology?
It's from the bible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_quick_and_the_dead_(idiom)
"Quick" is an old word meaning "alive2.
Yes. The characteristic of a living thing is that it can move
in some way.
Over the centuries the meaning of "quick" has developed from
"alive" to "moving rapidly", physically or mentally, and then
to "rapid/fast/etc".
quicksilver

in Italian is "argento vivo" (alive silver)
--
E-S °¿°
Ho plonkato tutti quelli che postano da Google Groups!
Qui è Usenet, non è il Web!
Ken Blake
2018-01-26 22:35:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ADPUF
On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 19:03:40 +0000, the Omrud
Post by the Omrud
Post by b***@gmail.com
What's it mean and what's its origin — and is that a better term than etymology?
It's from the bible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_quick_and_the_dead_(idiom)
"Quick" is an old word meaning "alive2.
Yes. The characteristic of a living thing is that it can move
in some way.
Over the centuries the meaning of "quick" has developed from
"alive" to "moving rapidly", physically or mentally, and then
to "rapid/fast/etc".
quicksilver
in Italian is "argento vivo" (ali
ADPUF
2018-02-27 08:44:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 20:35:01 +0100, ADPUF
Post by ADPUF
On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 19:03:40 +0000, the Omrud
Post by the Omrud
"Quick" is an old word meaning "alive2.
Yes. The characteristic of a living thing is that it can
move in some way.
Over the centuries the meaning of "quick" has developed
from "alive" to "moving rapidly", physically or mentally,
and then to "rapid/fast/etc".
quicksilver
in Italian is "argento vivo" (alive silver)
Or "mercurio."
Which is the commonly used word for a not anymore so common
material.
--
E-S °¿°
Ho plonkato tutti quelli che postano da Google Groups!
Qui è Usenet, non è il Web!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet
Peter Moylan
2018-03-01 02:08:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ADPUF
On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 20:35:01 +0100, ADPUF
Post by ADPUF
On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 19:03:40 +0000, the Omrud
Post by the Omrud
"Quick" is an old word meaning "alive2.
Yes. The characteristic of a living thing is that it can move
in some way.
Over the centuries the meaning of "quick" has developed from
"alive" to "moving rapidly", physically or mentally, and then
to "rapid/fast/etc".
quicksilver
in Italian is "argento vivo" (alive silver)
Or "mercurio."
Which is the commonly used word for a not anymore so common
material.
The reason it's not so common now is that it all ran down through the
cracks in the floorboards when we were playing with it in school.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Tak To
2018-01-27 01:42:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ADPUF
On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 19:03:40 +0000, the Omrud
Post by the Omrud
Post by b***@gmail.com
What's it mean and what's its origin — and is that a better term than etymology?
It's from the bible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_quick_and_the_dead_(idiom)
"Quick" is an old word meaning "alive2.
Yes. The characteristic of a living thing is that it can move
in some way.
Over the centuries the meaning of "quick" has developed from
"alive" to "moving rapidly", physically or mentally, and then
to "rapid/fast/etc".
quicksilver
in Italian is "argento vivo" (alive silver)
Also: quicklime, quicksand. Fr "chaux vive" but "sables mouvants".
--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ***@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
Peter Moylan
2018-01-27 02:51:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ADPUF
Ho plonkato tutti quelli che postano da Google Groups!
Qui è Usenet, non è il Web!
Is plonkare really an Italian verb? I don't recall seeing many Italian
words with a 'k'.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-01-27 13:09:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by ADPUF
Ho plonkato tutti quelli che postano da Google Groups!
Qui è Usenet, non è il Web!
Is plonkare really an Italian verb? I don't recall seeing many Italian
words with a 'k'.
--
It is but it's a back formation from English "plonk", hence the
unusual spelling.
Janet
2018-01-27 13:44:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by ADPUF
Ho plonkato tutti quelli che postano da Google Groups!
Qui è Usenet, non è il Web!
Is plonkare really an Italian verb? I don't recall seeing many Italian
words with a 'k'.
--
It is but it's a back formation from English "plonk", hence the
unusual spelling.
Man-to-mansplaining.

Janet.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-01-27 14:10:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by ADPUF
Ho plonkato tutti quelli che postano da Google Groups!
Qui è Usenet, non è il Web!
Is plonkare really an Italian verb? I don't recall seeing many Italian
words with a 'k'.
No, but the sentiment makes reasonable, except that there are some
useful posters from Google Groups.
--
athel
Peter Moylan
2018-01-27 23:33:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by ADPUF
Ho plonkato tutti quelli che postano da Google Groups!
Qui è Usenet, non è il Web!
Is plonkare really an Italian verb? I don't recall seeing many Italian
words with a 'k'.
No, but the sentiment makes reasonable, except that there are some
useful posters from Google Groups.
With careful filter design you can probably plonk "everyone from GG
except for the following list", but then you have to review a lot of old
posts to work out who should be on the list. That's so much trouble that
nobody will do it.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Ken Blake
2018-01-28 00:02:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by ADPUF
Ho plonkato tutti quelli che postano da Google Groups!
Qui è Usenet, non è il Web!
Is plonkare really an Italian verb? I don't recall seeing many Italian
words with a 'k'.
No, it's not. There is no K in the Italian alphabet. It was
undoubtedly meant as a humorous translation of "plonk."


I would have written something like "Ho cartellina ucciso tutti quelli
che postano da Google Groups!" but that might not be a great
translation ei
Jerry Friedman
2018-01-28 00:43:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by ADPUF
Ho plonkato tutti quelli che postano da Google Groups!
Qui è Usenet, non è il Web!
Is plonkare really an Italian verb? I don't recall seeing many Italian
words with a 'k'.
No, it's not. There is no K in the Italian alphabet. It was
undoubtedly meant as a humorous translation of "plonk."
When I was participating in alt.usage.spanish, some of the Spanish
speakers hispanicized the word "plonk" in this sense. (They also
thought "ROTFLMAO" was an imitation of laughter and came up with their
own variations, such as "MARRAMIAO!")
Post by Ken Blake
I would have written something like "Ho cartellina ucciso tutti quelli
che postano da Google Groups!" but that might not be a great
translation either.
--
Jerry Friedman
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-01-28 07:56:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
No, I didn't.
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by ADPUF
Ho plonkato tutti quelli che postano da Google Groups!
Qui è Usenet, non è il Web!
Is plonkare really an Italian verb? I don't recall seeing many Italian
words with a 'k'.
No, it's not. There is no K in the Italian alphabet. It was
undoubtedly meant as a humorous translation of "plonk."
I would have written something like "Ho cartellina ucciso tutti quelli
che postano da Google Groups!" but that might not be a great
translation either.
--
athel
Ken Blake
2018-01-28 15:44:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 28 Jan 2018 08:56:53 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
No, I didn't.
OK, sorry if I screwed up the attributions when I trimmed.
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by ADPUF
Ho plonkato tutti quelli che postano da Google Groups!
Qui è Usenet, non è il Web!
Is plonkare really an Italian verb? I don't recall seeing many Italian
words with a 'k'.
No, it's not. There is no K in the Italian alphabet. It was
undoubtedly meant as a humorous translation of "plonk."
I would have written something like "Ho cartellina ucciso tutti quelli
che postano da Google Groups!" but that might not be a great
transla
Default User
2018-01-28 06:04:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
No, but the sentiment makes reasonable, except that there are some
useful posters from Google Groups.
Are there that many from GG, useful or not? I'd think that you could probably plonk on an individual basis pretty effectively.


Brian (one of those currently, we'll see starting Thursday).
RH Draney
2018-01-28 09:24:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Default User
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
No, but the sentiment makes reasonable, except that there are some
useful posters from Google Groups.
Are there that many from GG, useful or not? I'd think that you could probably plonk on an individual basis pretty effectively.
The reason for the blanket plonk is all the people who post once and
then vanish...individual basis doesn't work there....r
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-01-28 10:09:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RH Draney
Post by Default User
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
No, but the sentiment makes reasonable, except that there are some
useful posters from Google Groups.
Are there that many from GG, useful or not? I'd think that you could
probably plonk on an individual basis pretty effectively.
The reason for the blanket plonk is all the people who post once and
then vanish...individual basis doesn't work there....r
I was hoping that a blanket plonk would get rid of the Colonel and the
band of plonkers who answer him, but unfortunately most of them don't
seem to come from Google Groups.
--
athel
Peter Moylan
2018-01-28 10:41:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by RH Draney
On Saturday, January 27, 2018 at 8:10:29 AM UTC-6, Athel
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
No, but the sentiment makes reasonable, except that there are
some useful posters from Google Groups.
Are there that many from GG, useful or not? I'd think that you
could probably plonk on an individual basis pretty effectively.
The reason for the blanket plonk is all the people who post once
and then vanish...individual basis doesn't work there....r
I was hoping that a blanket plonk would get rid of the Colonel and
the band of plonkers who answer him, but unfortunately most of them
don't seem to come from Google Groups.
I filter out anything that's cross-posted to alt.war.vietnam,
alt.checkmate, alt.usenet.kooks, or alt.fan.jai-maharaj. That gets rid
of a surprising number of pests. A separate filter is still needed for
the Colonel, but not for his groupies.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Peter T. Daniels
2018-01-28 14:40:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by RH Draney
Post by Default User
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
No, but the sentiment makes reasonable, except that there are some
useful posters from Google Groups.
Are there that many from GG, useful or not? I'd think that you could
probably plonk on an individual basis pretty effectively.
The reason for the blanket plonk is all the people who post once and
then vanish...individual basis doesn't work there....r
I was hoping that a blanket plonk would get rid of the Colonel and the
band of plonkers who answer him, but unfortunately most of them don't
seem to come from Google Groups.
As would be obvious to anyone sophisticated enough to consult their headers.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-01-28 14:39:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RH Draney
Post by Default User
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
No, but the sentiment makes reasonable, except that there are some
useful posters from Google Groups.
Are there that many from GG, useful or not? I'd think that you could probably plonk on an individual basis pretty effectively.
The reason for the blanket plonk is all the people who post once and
then vanish...individual basis doesn't work there....r
They are not, in fact, GG users. They are gmail users who were shown a message that started
a thread -- sometimes 20 years ago -- and typed a reply, perhaps thinking it would be emailed
to the original poster.
Will Parsons
2018-01-29 23:18:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, 28 Jan 2018 9:39 AM -0500, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
...
Post by Peter T. Daniels
They are not, in fact, GG users. They are gmail users who were shown a message that started
a thread -- sometimes 20 years ago -- and typed a reply, perhaps thinking it would be emailed
to the original poster.
I know this has come up in the past, but maybe someone here who is
knowledgeable can give me a definitive answer - what does e-mail have
to do with Usenet anyway? I use a real newreader, so both reading and
responding to posts is done via NNTP, not e-mail. I've never used
Google groups to participate in Usenet - do people actually respond to
posts using e-mail (gmail or otherwise)? It seems unlikely to me, but
maybe I don't how Google works in this respect.
--
Will
Ken Blake
2018-01-29 23:34:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 18:18:14 -0500, Will Parsons
Post by Will Parsons
I know this has come up in the past, but maybe someone here who is
knowledgeable can give me a definitive answer - what does e-mail have
to do with Usenet anyway?
Nothing, other than that it's common for a single program to do both:
for example, Outlook Express, Forte Agent, etc.

Some people like having a single program do both, but personally I see
no advantage to it. Even though I use Agent for Usenet, I don't use it
for e-mail.
Post by Will Parsons
I use a real newreader, so both reading and
responding to posts is done via NNTP, not e-mail. I've never used
Google groups to participate in Usenet - do people actually respond to
posts using e-mail (gmail or otherwise)? It seems unlikely to me, but
maybe I don't how Google works in this respect.
Some people do reply by e-mail, whether Gmail or any other way,
although most Usenet participants don't want to get replies that way.
I don't, and it's for that reason that I don't supply my real e-mail
address in newsgroup posts.

And let me add that most people who participate in Usenet via Google
Groups have little or no idea what they are doing and screw things up
royally. For example it's common to see a Google Groups user reply to
a message that's several years old.

Google Groups is an excellent resource for doing Usenet searches, but
it's a terrible way to participate.

And one other point: there's a lot of Usenet spamming that comes from
Google Groups. For this reason and the one above, many Usenet
participants don't read posts from Google Groups, and some
s***@gmail.com
2018-01-30 00:13:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ken Blake
And let me add that most people who participate in Usenet via Google
Groups have little or no idea what they are doing and screw things up
royally. For example it's common to see a Google Groups user reply to
a message that's several years old.
This is not quite true. Someone who is not a GG user but does a search
where the results include a usenet post presented through the GG archive
may reply to a message that's several years old. Checking the GG history of the user will often show only a single post.

This has been discussed many times on this forum,
but unfortunately there is no longer a FAQ.

/dps "or 'an F-A-Q'"
b***@shaw.ca
2018-01-30 01:03:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ken Blake
On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 18:18:14 -0500, Will Parsons
Post by Will Parsons
I use a real newreader, so both reading and
responding to posts is done via NNTP, not e-mail. I've never used
Google groups to participate in Usenet - do people actually respond to
posts using e-mail (gmail or otherwise)? It seems unlikely to me, but
maybe I don't how Google works in this respect.
Some people do reply by e-mail, whether Gmail or any other way,
although most Usenet participants don't want to get replies that way.
I don't, and it's for that reason that I don't supply my real e-mail
address in newsgroup posts.
I supply a working email address in my headers, and I've received
perhaps a dozen emails from other posters over the last decade.
All of them provided helpful information of a personal or otherwise
delicate nature that was better not posted to the group.

If you're an especially provocative and/or controversial poster, you might
not want to use a real email address. But for the rest of us, real email
will not result in a deluge of replies.
Post by Ken Blake
And let me add that most people who participate in Usenet via Google
Groups have little or no idea what they are doing and screw things up
royally.
I think you're mixing up two very different groups. Those who
have no idea what they're doing tend not to know what Usenet is. They
stumble across a post and reply to it, having no idea where it's going
or how to view replies.

The other group, of which I'm a member, consists of people who
-- perhaps temporarily -- do not have access to an acceptable
news reader or news server. In my case, it's because my long-term
news reader for Mac is no longer supported by its creators, and I haven't
decided yet whether any of the alternatives are to my liking. Most are
no longer being updated, so I'm loath to board another sinking ship.

I'll be changing to something else some time, but in the meantime GG,
despite its limitations and irritating features, keeps me in touch with a few
groups. I try to remember to hand-enter returns for those whose software
isn't line-wrapping and I don't abuse other posters. Your comment above
felt like a thoughtless slight to me.
Post by Ken Blake
For example it's common to see a Google Groups user reply to
a message that's several years old.
That's the other group, the people who have no idea what Usenet is.
I've been posting to Usenet since 1994 without making more than one
or two enemies. Perhaps you can see the gravity of your insult.
Post by Ken Blake
Google Groups is an excellent resource for doing Usenet searches, but
it's a terrible way to participate.
Terrible is overstating the case. GG has annoying features and limitations,
but it will do for a while.
Post by Ken Blake
And one other point: there's a lot of Usenet spamming that comes from
Google Groups. For this reason and the one above, many Usenet
participants don't read posts from Google Groups, and some people even
killfile such posts.
I've known posters who did that, but it's kind of an old-fashioned
prejudice by now. Most of those posters were seriously pissed off
when AOL and the like started spilling their members all over cyberspace.
They often had no idea what Usenet was, had never heard of netiquette,
and could not be corrected without a flame war. That was a long time ago.

bill
Peter T. Daniels
2018-01-30 04:22:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ken Blake
On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 18:18:14 -0500, Will Parsons
Post by Will Parsons
I know this has come up in the past, but maybe someone here who is
knowledgeable can give me a definitive answer - what does e-mail have
to do with Usenet anyway?
for example, Outlook Express, Forte Agent, etc.
Some people like having a single program do both, but personally I see
no advantage to it. Even though I use Agent for Usenet, I don't use it
for e-mail.
Post by Will Parsons
I use a real newreader, so both reading and
responding to posts is done via NNTP, not e-mail. I've never used
Google groups to participate in Usenet - do people actually respond to
posts using e-mail (gmail or otherwise)? It seems unlikely to me, but
maybe I don't how Google works in this respect.
Some people do reply by e-mail, whether Gmail or any other way,
although most Usenet participants don't want to get replies that way.
I don't, and it's for that reason that I don't supply my real e-mail
address in newsgroup posts.
And let me add that most people who participate in Usenet via Google
Groups have little or no idea what they are doing and screw things up
royally. For example it's common to see a Google Groups user reply to
a message that's several years old.
The octogenarian is repeating long-discounted lies.

Or does not know the meanings of words such as "most" and "common."
Post by Ken Blake
Google Groups is an excellent resource for doing Usenet searches, but
it's a terrible way to participate.
And one other point: there's a lot of Usenet spamming that comes from
Google Groups. For this reason and the one above, many Usenet
participants don't read posts from Google Groups, and some people even
killfile such posts.
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2018-01-30 10:54:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ken Blake
On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 18:18:14 -0500, Will Parsons
Post by Will Parsons
I know this has come up in the past, but maybe someone here who is
knowledgeable can give me a definitive answer - what does e-mail have
to do with Usenet anyway?
for example, Outlook Express, Forte Agent, etc.
Some people like having a single program do both, but personally I see
no advantage to it. Even though I use Agent for Usenet, I don't use it
for e-mail.
I use Agent for email as well as Usenet. It has the advantage that it is
portable, It can be installed on and run from a USB device such as a
portable disc drive. All the data files are on the portable drive so it
can be used on whatever (Win) computer you wish simply by plugging it in
to that computer.
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Will Parsons
I use a real newreader, so both reading and
responding to posts is done via NNTP, not e-mail. I've never used
Google groups to participate in Usenet - do people actually respond to
posts using e-mail (gmail or otherwise)? It seems unlikely to me, but
maybe I don't how Google works in this respect.
Some people do reply by e-mail, whether Gmail or any other way,
although most Usenet participants don't want to get replies that way.
I don't, and it's for that reason that I don't supply my real e-mail
address in newsgroup posts.
And let me add that most people who participate in Usenet via Google
Groups have little or no idea what they are doing and screw things up
royally. For example it's common to see a Google Groups user reply to
a message that's several years old.
Google Groups is an excellent resource for doing Usenet searches, but
it's a terrible way to participate.
And one other point: there's a lot of Usenet spamming that comes from
Google Groups. For this reason and the one above, many Usenet
participants don't read posts from Google Groups, and some people even
killfile such posts.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Ken Blake
2018-01-30 15:49:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 30 Jan 2018 10:54:36 +0000, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Ken Blake
On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 18:18:14 -0500, Will Parsons
Post by Will Parsons
I know this has come up in the past, but maybe someone here who is
knowledgeable can give me a definitive answer - what does e-mail have
to do with Usenet anyway?
for example, Outlook Express, Forte Agent, etc.
Some people like having a single program do both, but personally I see
no advantage to it. Even though I use Agent for Usenet, I don't use it
for e-mail.
I use Agent for email as well as Usenet. It has the advantage that it is
portable, It can be installed on and run from a USB device such as a
portable disc drive. All the data files are on the portable drive so it
can be used on whatever (Win) computer you wish simply by plugging it in
to that computer.
If that portability is valuable to you, that's fine. It wouldn't be
to me. I do al my e-mail on my desktop computer here at home, or if
I'm traveling, with Bluemail on my And
Default User
2018-01-30 17:01:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ken Blake
Google Groups is an excellent resource for doing Usenet searches, but
it's a terrible way to participate.
It's not the greatest tool, and with a small bit of effort on the part of Google's developers it could be much better, but I wouldn't say "terrible".

It has one big advantage over most usenet systems in that you can use your GG account from various platforms and maintain synchronization automatically. That's handy if you, say, wish to read newsgroups occasionally from home and work. That's a tougher problem for a standard system.

Back when I was participating in usenet quite a bit (prior to September 2011), I would try various means to synchronize between locations.

I did a bit of experimentation recently with my preferred newsreader, XanaNews. I determined that the executable and the read-messages file could be stored on a USB flash drive, but that the configuration was stored in the registry. No doubt other applications would work better for that.


Brian
Richard Tobin
2018-01-30 17:18:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ken Blake
Google Groups is an excellent resource for doing Usenet searches, but
it's a terrible way to participate.
It *used* to be an excellent resource for Usenet searches, but now
it's complete rubbish. It fails at the most trivial tasks.

Try using it to solve the question posed here the other day: find the
earliest occurrence on Usenet of the phrase "cow orker".

When I search for that quoted phrase, it shows dozens of results.
There are, of course, really hundreds or thousands. When I select
"Sort by date", it changes to show only two.

-- Richard
Ken Blake
2018-01-30 17:42:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Ken Blake
Google Groups is an excellent resource for doing Usenet searches, but
it's a terrible way to participate.
It *used* to be an excellent resource for Usenet searches, but now
it's complete rubbish. It fails at the most trivial tasks.
Thanks. Since it's been a while since I've used it, I hadn't re
David Kleinecke
2018-01-30 18:47:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Ken Blake
Google Groups is an excellent resource for doing Usenet searches, but
it's a terrible way to participate.
It *used* to be an excellent resource for Usenet searches, but now
it's complete rubbish. It fails at the most trivial tasks.
Thanks. Since it's been a while since I've used it, I hadn't realized
that.
I just did a simple Google Groups search in AUE for
"cow orker" (without quotes) and got a couple of hundred
hits is reverse chronological order back to 1994. Not
ideal, however, because it only hit threads - not posts -
and the 1994 thread is too long for me to read just now.

But searching for "cow orker" with quotes gave me the
actual posts. The first one GG found was dated 11/9/94
and was in the signature (not the technical one) of
Jerry "a cow orker told me this" Stronk
Default User
2018-01-30 19:35:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Kleinecke
I just did a simple Google Groups search in AUE for
"cow orker" (without quotes) and got a couple of hundred
hits is reverse chronological order back to 1994. Not
ideal, however, because it only hit threads - not posts -
and the 1994 thread is too long for me to read just now.
Search within a group works that way. Searching all of usenet gives the posts sorted by relevance and switching to date usually has the result mentioned.

Try searching from https://groups.google.com and see what results you get.


Brian

Brian
Richard Tobin
2018-01-30 21:54:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Kleinecke
I just did a simple Google Groups search in AUE for
"cow orker" (without quotes) and got a couple of hundred
hits is reverse chronological order back to 1994. Not
ideal, however, because it only hit threads - not posts -
and the 1994 thread is too long for me to read just now.
And also not ideal since there are many instances of it before 1994,
which it will sometimes find depending on the exact search.

-- Richard
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-01-30 18:45:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Ken Blake
Google Groups is an excellent resource for doing Usenet searches, but
it's a terrible way to participate.
It *used* to be an excellent resource for Usenet searches, but now
it's complete rubbish. It fails at the most trivial tasks.
That is something I find quite remarkable. How is it possible that a
company that introduced a search facility so effective that it drove
all the others (AltaVista, Yahoo, etc.) out of the market within a
couple of years proves to be so unbelievably bad at searching its own
guide.

DejaNews wasn't too bad, but its takeover by Google followed by all the
downgrades Google has foisted on users since then has converted it into
complete rubbish.
Post by Richard Tobin
Try using it to solve the question posed here the other day: find the
earliest occurrence on Usenet of the phrase "cow orker".
When I search for that quoted phrase, it shows dozens of results.
There are, of course, really hundreds or thousands. When I select
"Sort by date", it changes to show only two.
-- Richard
--
athel
Mark Brader
2018-01-30 23:48:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Ken Blake
Google Groups is an excellent resource for doing Usenet searches, but
it's a terrible way to participate.
It *used* to be an excellent resource for Usenet searches, but now
it's complete rubbish. It fails at the most trivial tasks.
That is something I find quite remarkable. How is it possible that a
company that introduced a search facility so effective that it drove
all the others (AltaVista, Yahoo, etc.) out of the market within a
couple of years proves to be so unbelievably bad at searching its own
Exactly. If you saw that plot development in a work of fiction, you'd
complain about how totally implausible it was.
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
guide.
Its own *what*?
--
Mark Brader | "...Backwards Compatibility, which, if you've made as
***@vex.net | many mistakes as Intel and Microsoft have in the past,
Toronto | can be very Backwards indeed." -- Steve Summit

My text in this article is in the public domain.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-01-31 06:32:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Ken Blake
Google Groups is an excellent resource for doing Usenet searches, but
it's a terrible way to participate.
It *used* to be an excellent resource for Usenet searches, but now
it's complete rubbish. It fails at the most trivial tasks.
That is something I find quite remarkable. How is it possible that a
company that introduced a search facility so effective that it drove
all the others (AltaVista, Yahoo, etc.) out of the market within a
couple of years proves to be so unbelievably bad at searching its own
Exactly. If you saw that plot development in a work of fiction, you'd
complain about how totally implausible it was.
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
guide.
Its own *what*?
"archive". In contrast to Strunk's injunction to omit needless words,
I'm often guilty of omitting needed words (or, as apparently in this
case) introducing unwanted words.
--
athel
Mark Brader
2018-01-31 08:10:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Mark Brader
Its own *what*?
"archive".
Oh! I didn't think of that.
--
Mark Brader | The "I didn't think of that" type of failure occurs because
Toronto | I didn't think of that, and the reason I didn't think of it
***@vex.net | is because it never occurred to me. If we'd been able to
| think of 'em, we would have. -- John W. Campbell
Default User
2018-01-30 19:33:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Ken Blake
Google Groups is an excellent resource for doing Usenet searches, but
it's a terrible way to participate.
It *used* to be an excellent resource for Usenet searches, but now
it's complete rubbish. It fails at the most trivial tasks.
Try using it to solve the question posed here the other day: find the
earliest occurrence on Usenet of the phrase "cow orker".
When I search for that quoted phrase, it shows dozens of results.
There are, of course, really hundreds or thousands. When I select
"Sort by date", it changes to show only two.
I have noticed this as well. There used to be an Advanced Search that allowed customizing searches, but that's been gone for some time.


Brian
musika
2018-01-30 19:58:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 30/01/2018 19:33, Default User wrote:
here used to be an Advanced Search that allowed customizing searches,
but that's been gone for some time.
No, it's still there. When you go into a group a tiny down-triangle
appears at the end of the input bar. Click on it - that's where the
advanced search is.
--
Ray
UK
Sam Plusnet
2018-01-30 21:45:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Default User
here used to be an Advanced Search that allowed customizing searches,
but that's been gone for some time.
No, it's still there. When you go into a group a tiny down-triangle
appears at the end of the input bar. Click on it - that's where the
advanced search is.
“But the plans were on display…”
“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”
“That’s the display department.”
“With a flashlight.”
“Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”
“So had the stairs.”
“But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?”
“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a
locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the
door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”

I suppose that's a slight exaggeration in this case.

N.B. The use of the word "Flashlight" in this quote suggests some
tinkering with the original material.
--
Sam Plusnet
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-01-31 06:35:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Default User
here used to be an Advanced Search that allowed customizing searches,
but that's been gone for some time.
No, it's still there. When you go into a group a tiny down-triangle
appears at the end of the input bar. Click on it - that's where the
advanced search is.
“But the plans were on display…”
“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”
“That’s the display department.”
“With a flashlight.”
“Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”
“So had the stairs.”
“But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?”
“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a
locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the
door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”
I suppose that's a slight exaggeration in this case.
N.B. The use of the word "Flashlight" in this quote suggests some
tinkering with the original material.
That's what I thought: "flashlight" and "lavatory" don't seem to belong
together.
--
athel
Mark Brader
2018-01-31 08:34:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
"But the plans were on display..."
"On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them."
"That's the display department."
"With a flashlight."
"Ah, well, the lights had probably gone."
"So had the stairs."
"But look, you found the notice, didn't you?"
"Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a
locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the
door saying 'Beware of the Leopard."
I suppose that's a slight exaggeration in this case.
N.B. The use of the word "Flashlight" in this quote suggests some
tinkering
(By who?)
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
with the original material.
That's what I thought: "flashlight" and "lavatory" don't seem to belong
together.
You're both right. As per 0-330-29388-9, page 19, the original dialogue is:

# PROSSER:
# The plans were on display.
#
# ARTHUR:
# And how many average members of the public are in the habit of
# casually dropping round at the local planning office of an evening?
# It's not exactly a noted social venue is it? And even if you had
# popped in on the off-chance that some raving bureaucrat wanted to
# knock your house down, the plans weren't immediately obvious to
# the eye, were they?
#
# PROSSER:
# That depends where you were looking.
#
# ARTHUR:
# I eventually had to go down to the cellar...
#
# PROSSER:
# That's the display department.
#
# ARTHUR:
# ...with a torch.
#
# PROSSER:
# Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.
#
# ARTHUR:
# So had the stairs.
#
# PROSSER:
# But you found the notice didn't you?
#
# ARTHUR:
# Yes. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet
# stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware
# of the Leopard'. Ever thought of going into advertising?

Of course the scene also occurs in at least the novel, the TV show,
and the movie version, and quite probably others that I haven't seen,
so some variation is downright likely.

In particular, I know of at least one variation between US and British
editions of the books; perhaps this is another. From a Leftpondian
point of view "lavatory" is just a fancy word for the thing but
"torch" for a flashlight is dead wrong, so it's quite possible that
a publisher would change one and not the other.
--
Mark Brader Safire's Rule on Who-Whom:
Toronto "Whenever 'whom' sounds correct, recast the sentence."
***@vex.net --William Safire, N.Y. Times Magazine

My text in this article is in the public domain.
Richard Tobin
2018-01-30 21:58:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Default User
here used to be an Advanced Search that allowed customizing searches,
but that's been gone for some time.
No, it's still there. When you go into a group a tiny down-triangle
appears at the end of the input bar. Click on it - that's where the
advanced search is.
But it only works within a single group.

-- Richard
Default User
2018-01-31 02:13:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[Advanced Search]
No, it's still there. When you go into a group a tiny down-triangle
appears at the end of the input bar. Click on it - that's where the
advanced search is.
Ah. Thank you. I thought I recalled it having an option to sort the results, but I might be misremembering. It doesn't seem to now.


Brian
musika
2018-01-31 11:27:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Default User
[Advanced Search]
No, it's still there. When you go into a group a tiny
down-triangle appears at the end of the input bar. Click on it -
that's where the advanced search is.
Ah. Thank you. I thought I recalled it having an option to sort the
results, but I might be misremembering. It doesn't seem to now.
Yes, it might not be the same advanced search as before.
--
Ray
UK
s***@gmail.com
2018-01-31 21:25:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by musika
Post by Default User
[Advanced Search]
No, it's still there. When you go into a group a tiny
down-triangle appears at the end of the input bar. Click on it -
that's where the advanced search is.
Ah. Thank you. I thought I recalled it having an option to sort the
results, but I might be misremembering. It doesn't seem to now.
Yes, it might not be the same advanced search as before.
The sorting option used to be on the results page, but it seems to have disappeared recently ("sort by relevance" vs "sort by date"),
and "sort by date" appears to be the default, with no other option.

I just searched for "pebble", and the first hit was a 406 post tree from 2017,
which opened on the last post.
(That whole thread is marked "read" on the instance I searched from,
as are all the other hits.)
That seems consistent down the list,
although I recall times when the results opened a thread
to a post that included the search term.

I am uncertain what made one thread more relevant than another;
perhaps the number of occurrences of the search term.

/dps
Peter Moylan
2018-02-01 01:15:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by musika
Post by Default User
[Advanced Search]
No, it's still there. When you go into a group a tiny
down-triangle appears at the end of the input bar. Click on it
- that's where the advanced search is.
Ah. Thank you. I thought I recalled it having an option to sort
the results, but I might be misremembering. It doesn't seem to
now.
Yes, it might not be the same advanced search as before.
The sorting option used to be on the results page, but it seems to
have disappeared recently ("sort by relevance" vs "sort by date"),
and "sort by date" appears to be the default, with no other option.
I never really understood Google's "sort by relevance". How would a
search engine know what is relevant to me?
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Garrett Wollman
2018-02-01 02:03:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
I never really understood Google's "sort by relevance". How would a
search engine know what is relevant to me?
By the text you put into the search box, of course. In the case of
something like DejaNews^WGoogle Groups, since there isn't the link
structure that PageRank depends on, they could be using a classic
information-retrieval metric like tf-idf
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tf–idf> or a more modern topic model
technique where documents can be ranked by a confidence score.

-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | "Act to avoid constraining the future; if you can,
***@bimajority.org| act to remove constraint from the future. This is
Opinions not shared by| a thing you can do, are able to do, to do together."
my employers. | - Graydon Saunders, _A Succession of Bad Days_ (2015)
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-02-01 15:40:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by musika
Post by Default User
[Advanced Search]
No, it's still there. When you go into a group a tiny
down-triangle appears at the end of the input bar. Click on it
- that's where the advanced search is.
Ah. Thank you. I thought I recalled it having an option to sort
the results, but I might be misremembering. It doesn't seem to
now.
Yes, it might not be the same advanced search as before.
The sorting option used to be on the results page, but it seems to
have disappeared recently ("sort by relevance" vs "sort by date"),
and "sort by date" appears to be the default, with no other option.
I never really understood Google's "sort by relevance". How would a
search engine know what is relevant to me?
What irritates me no end is that Google presumes to know which of my
search terms I don't really want. If I search for "Paul Carmichael
Malaga" the first three hits are OK, but after that it assumes that I
didn't intend to include "Malaga" in the search. Sometimes (but not
this time) some of my search terms are crossed out in the very first
hit. My recollection is that Google used to be far better than it is
now.

--
athel
Richard Tobin
2018-02-01 16:05:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
What irritates me no end is that Google presumes to know which of my
search terms I don't really want. If I search for "Paul Carmichael
Malaga" the first three hits are OK, but after that it assumes that I
didn't intend to include "Malaga" in the search. Sometimes (but not
this time) some of my search terms are crossed out in the very first
hit. My recollection is that Google used to be far better than it is
now.
Putting double quotes around single words usually ensures they are
present.

-- Richard
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-02-01 16:17:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
What irritates me no end is that Google presumes to know which of my
search terms I don't really want. If I search for "Paul Carmichael
Malaga" the first three hits are OK, but after that it assumes that I
didn't intend to include "Malaga" in the search. Sometimes (but not
this time) some of my search terms are crossed out in the very first
hit. My recollection is that Google used to be far better than it is
now.
Putting double quotes around single words usually ensures they are
present.
I'll try that, thanks, but why do they think they know better than I do
what I want?
--
athel
Lanarcam
2018-02-01 16:17:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
What irritates me no end is that Google presumes to know which of my
search terms I don't really want. If I search for "Paul Carmichael
Malaga" the first three hits are OK, but after that it assumes that I
didn't intend to include "Malaga" in the search. Sometimes (but not
this time) some of my search terms are crossed out in the very first
hit. My recollection is that Google used to be far better than it is
now.
Putting double quotes around single words usually ensures they are
present.
I'll try that, thanks, but why do they think they know better than I do
what I want?
Because Google is now artificially intelligent.
Garrett Wollman
2018-02-01 17:05:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I'll try that, thanks, but why do they think they know better than I do
what I want?
Because chances are pretty good that one or more words in a query are
extraneous. They can quantify this probability and use it in their
model to determine what results are to be shown. They have a billion
users or so, and over that population, unusual collocations are much
more likely to be an error or overspecification than to be the thing
one is actually searching for.

-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | "Act to avoid constraining the future; if you can,
***@bimajority.org| act to remove constraint from the future. This is
Opinions not shared by| a thing you can do, are able to do, to do together."
my employers. | - Graydon Saunders, _A Succession of Bad Days_ (2015)
Default User
2018-02-01 18:04:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
What irritates me no end is that Google presumes to know which of my
search terms I don't really want. If I search for "Paul Carmichael
Malaga" the first three hits are OK, but after that it assumes that I
didn't intend to include "Malaga" in the search. Sometimes (but not
this time) some of my search terms are crossed out in the very first
hit. My recollection is that Google used to be far better than it is
now.
After you perform a search, you should see several items under the text
entry area. One should be "Tools". When you click that, there should be
a pull-down labeled "All Results". Choose "Verbatim", which not only
doesn't exclude search terms but I believe prevents substitution of
synonyms.


Brian
s***@gmail.com
2018-01-29 23:59:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Will Parsons
Post by Peter T. Daniels
They are not, in fact, GG users. They are gmail users who were shown a message that started
a thread -- sometimes 20 years ago -- and typed a reply, perhaps thinking it would be emailed
to the original poster.
I know this has come up in the past, but maybe someone here who is
knowledgeable can give me a definitive answer - what does e-mail have
to do with Usenet anyway? I use a real newreader, so both reading and
responding to posts is done via NNTP, not e-mail. I've never used
Google groups to participate in Usenet - do people actually respond to
posts using e-mail (gmail or otherwise)? It seems unlikely to me, but
maybe I don't how Google works in this respect.
I've skimmed Ken's reply, but here's my take --

the connection is incidental. In general, usenet [from the earliest days]
expects a user to provide an email address that can be used as
contact information. [Many people obfuscate that either to mask their
identity or, more commonly, to depower spammers.] When you have
a gmail account, and you're signed in, Google Groups automatically
takes that address as the one for the "From:" address.
People doing Google searches that return a usenet post will
see it through Google Groups, and will have a reply button.

Once upon a time, GG was disabling replies to posts older than someone threshold, but evidently there were complaints, and that was removed.
Enabling that restriction, or even using a pop-up to say
"OLD POST WARNING -- do you REALLY want to reply?"
would cut down on drive-by postings.

/dps
Ken Blake
2018-01-30 00:14:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Will Parsons
Post by Peter T. Daniels
They are not, in fact, GG users. They are gmail users who were shown a message that started
a thread -- sometimes 20 years ago -- and typed a reply, perhaps thinking it would be emailed
to the original poster.
I know this has come up in the past, but maybe someone here who is
knowledgeable can give me a definitive answer - what does e-mail have
to do with Usenet anyway? I use a real newreader, so both reading and
responding to posts is done via NNTP, not e-mail. I've never used
Google groups to participate in Usenet - do people actually respond to
posts using e-mail (gmail or otherwise)? It seems unlikely to me, but
maybe I don't how Google works in this respect.
I've skimmed Ken's reply, but here's my take --
the connection is incidental. In general, usenet [from the earliest days]
expects a user to provide an email address that can be used as
contact information. [Many people obfuscate that either to mask their
identity or, more commonly, to depower spammers.]
Yes, but neither of those reasons is *my* primary one: I don't mask my
identity--Ken Blake is my real name, and if you tried hard enough, you
could probably find one of my e-mail addresses. I do it mostly because
back when I used to supply my real e-mail address, I would sometimes
get a reply sent to my e-mail address. I would typically answer it,
and then go to my newsreader, where I would find the same reply; it
had been sent to both. Because I often wanted my reply to be read by
the entire newsgroup, I would then repeat my reply.

It was a pain. Not supplying a real e-mail address solved
Peter T. Daniels
2018-01-30 04:26:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ken Blake
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Will Parsons
Post by Peter T. Daniels
They are not, in fact, GG users. They are gmail users who were shown a message that started
a thread -- sometimes 20 years ago -- and typed a reply, perhaps thinking it would be emailed
to the original poster.
I know this has come up in the past, but maybe someone here who is
knowledgeable can give me a definitive answer - what does e-mail have
to do with Usenet anyway? I use a real newreader, so both reading and
responding to posts is done via NNTP, not e-mail. I've never used
Google groups to participate in Usenet - do people actually respond to
posts using e-mail (gmail or otherwise)? It seems unlikely to me, but
maybe I don't how Google works in this respect.
I've skimmed Ken's reply, but here's my take --
the connection is incidental. In general, usenet [from the earliest days]
expects a user to provide an email address that can be used as
contact information. [Many people obfuscate that either to mask their
identity or, more commonly, to depower spammers.]
Yes, but neither of those reasons is *my* primary one: I don't mask my
identity--Ken Blake is my real name, and if you tried hard enough, you
could probably find one of my e-mail addresses. I do it mostly because
back when I used to supply my real e-mail address, I would sometimes
get a reply sent to my e-mail address. I would typically answer it,
and then go to my newsreader, where I would find the same reply; it
had been sent to both. Because I often wanted my reply to be read by
the entire newsgroup, I would then repeat my reply.
It was a pain. Not supplying a real e-mail address solved that
problem.
How many decades ago must that have been.

On the vanishingly small occasions when someone has hit the wrong button and
emailed instead of replying to the newsgroup, I've inquired whether they made
a mistake, and they say they have, and then either do or don't post the message
to the group. They don't automatically or inadvertently do both.

But "Ken Blake" (if that _is_ his real name) decided that because I corrected a
mistake about New York dialect in one of his very first postings, he would never
read a message from me again.
J. J. Lodder
2018-01-30 21:54:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
But "Ken Blake" (if that _is_ his real name) decided that because I
corrected a mistake about New York dialect in one of his very first
postings, he would never read a message from me again.
This 'Ken Blake' has auto-killed himself for me:
none of his postings gets through. (no kill file)
I only see his text if quoted.

A mystery, don't have that with any other poster,

Jan
Richard Tobin
2018-01-30 21:59:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
none of his postings gets through. (no kill file)
I only see his text if quoted.
A mystery, don't have that with any other poster,
His posts are all base-64 encoded; perhaps your ISP discards them
as binaries.

-- Richard
Garrett Wollman
2018-01-30 22:05:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by J. J. Lodder
none of his postings gets through. (no kill file)
I only see his text if quoted.
A mystery, don't have that with any other poster,
His posts are all base-64 encoded; perhaps your ISP discards them
as binaries.
Perhaps because they contain extraneous carriage-return characters.

-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | "Act to avoid constraining the future; if you can,
***@bimajority.org| act to remove constraint from the future. This is
Opinions not shared by| a thing you can do, are able to do, to do together."
my employers. | - Graydon Saunders, _A Succession of Bad Days_ (2015)
Ken Blake
2018-01-30 22:07:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by J. J. Lodder
none of his postings gets through. (no kill file)
I only see his text if quoted.
A mystery, don't have that with any other poster,
His posts are all base-64 encoded; perhaps your ISP discards them
as binaries.
I just changed to Quoted Printable (Mime). Is that better?
J. J. Lodder
2018-01-30 22:59:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by J. J. Lodder
none of his postings gets through. (no kill file)
I only see his text if quoted.
A mystery, don't have that with any other poster,
His posts are all base-64 encoded; perhaps your ISP discards them
as binaries.
I just changed to Quoted Printable (Mime). Is that better?
Yes, that does it,

Jan
John Varela
2018-01-31 19:53:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by J. J. Lodder
none of his postings gets through. (no kill file)
I only see his text if quoted.
A mystery, don't have that with any other poster,
His posts are all base-64 encoded; perhaps your ISP discards them
as binaries.
I just changed to Quoted Printable (Mime). Is that better?
Much better. You probably noticed in an exchange we just had in
another thread that my response to you quoted yours as a pointer to
the file where your decoded file was stored. Which is why I used
never to read your posts unless they were either replies to mine or
were quoted by someone else.
--
John Varela
Ken Blake
2018-01-31 23:36:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Varela
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by J. J. Lodder
none of his postings gets through. (no kill file)
I only see his text if quoted.
A mystery, don't have that with any other poster,
His posts are all base-64 encoded; perhaps your ISP discards them
as binaries.
I just changed to Quoted Printable (Mime). Is that better?
Much better. You probably noticed in an exchange we just had in
another thread that my response to you quoted yours as a pointer to
the file where your decoded file was stored. Which is why I used
never to read your posts unless they were either replies to mine or
were quoted by someone else.
Thanks. I hadn't even realized they were base-64 encoded.
Peter Moylan
2018-02-01 01:21:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by J. J. Lodder
none of his postings gets through. (no kill file)
I only see his text if quoted.
A mystery, don't have that with any other poster,
His posts are all base-64 encoded; perhaps your ISP discards them
as binaries.
I just changed to Quoted Printable (Mime). Is that better?
It works, but why use any encoding at all? A random sampling of posts
suggests to me that the majority of posters here have no
Content-Transfer-Encoding header at all (it's not really needed unless
you want to send binary data), and those that do have it use something like

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

(or 7bit for ASCII users).
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Ken Blake
2018-02-01 19:19:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 12:21:01 +1100, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by J. J. Lodder
none of his postings gets through. (no kill file)
I only see his text if quoted.
A mystery, don't have that with any other poster,
His posts are all base-64 encoded; perhaps your ISP discards them
as binaries.
I just changed to Quoted Printable (Mime). Is that better?
It works, but why use any encoding at all? A random sampling of posts
suggests to me that the majority of posters here have no
Content-Transfer-Encoding header at all (it's not really needed unless
you want to send binary data), and those that do have it use something like
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
(or 7bit for ASCII users).
OK, I changed Agent to 7bit / 8bit. Is that even better than Quoted
Printable (Mime)?

This is a subject about which I know very little.
Paul Wolff
2018-02-02 00:53:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ken Blake
On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 12:21:01 +1100, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by J. J. Lodder
none of his postings gets through. (no kill file)
I only see his text if quoted.
A mystery, don't have that with any other poster,
His posts are all base-64 encoded; perhaps your ISP discards them
as binaries.
I just changed to Quoted Printable (Mime). Is that better?
It works, but why use any encoding at all? A random sampling of posts
suggests to me that the majority of posters here have no
Content-Transfer-Encoding header at all (it's not really needed unless
you want to send binary data), and those that do have it use something like
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
(or 7bit for ASCII users).
OK, I changed Agent to 7bit / 8bit. Is that even better than Quoted
Printable (Mime)?
Depending on the font you have told your newsreader to use, '8bit' can
look very like 'Shit', so be careful.
Post by Ken Blake
This is a subject about which I know very little.
Don't worry: I'm sure someone will say that if you use an Apple product,
it's all intuitive anyway, so you don't actually have to have knowledge
at all.
--
Paul
RH Draney
2018-02-02 06:22:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul Wolff
Don't worry: I'm sure someone will say that if you use an Apple product,
it's all intuitive anyway, so you don't actually have to have knowledge
at all.
The last Apple interface that was actually as intuitive as claimed was
"the serpent beguiled me, and I did eat"....r
J. J. Lodder
2018-02-02 10:07:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RH Draney
Post by Paul Wolff
Don't worry: I'm sure someone will say that if you use an Apple product,
it's all intuitive anyway, so you don't actually have to have knowledge
at all.
The last Apple interface that was actually as intuitive as claimed was
"the serpent beguiled me, and I did eat"....r
Well, we know it did work as intended,
for Alan Turing at least,

Jan
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-02-02 12:08:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by RH Draney
Post by Paul Wolff
Don't worry: I'm sure someone will say that if you use an Apple product,
it's all intuitive anyway, so you don't actually have to have knowledge
at all.
The last Apple interface that was actually as intuitive as claimed was
"the serpent beguiled me, and I did eat"....r
Well, we know it did work as intended,
for Alan Turing at least,
There is increasing doubt about that.
Sam Plusnet
2018-02-02 18:30:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RH Draney
Post by Paul Wolff
Don't worry: I'm sure someone will say that if you use an Apple
product, it's all intuitive anyway, so you don't actually have to have
knowledge at all.
The last Apple interface that was actually as intuitive as claimed was
"the serpent beguiled me, and I did eat"....r
Typical!
Blame everything on a scape-ophidian.
--
Sam Plusnet
J. J. Lodder
2018-02-02 10:07:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Ken Blake
On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 12:21:01 +1100, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by J. J. Lodder
none of his postings gets through. (no kill file)
I only see his text if quoted.
A mystery, don't have that with any other poster,
His posts are all base-64 encoded; perhaps your ISP discards them
as binaries.
I just changed to Quoted Printable (Mime). Is that better?
It works, but why use any encoding at all? A random sampling of posts
suggests to me that the majority of posters here have no
Content-Transfer-Encoding header at all (it's not really needed unless
you want to send binary data), and those that do have it use something like
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
(or 7bit for ASCII users).
OK, I changed Agent to 7bit / 8bit. Is that even better than Quoted
Printable (Mime)?
Depending on the font you have told your newsreader to use, '8bit' can
look very like 'Shit', so be careful.
Post by Ken Blake
This is a subject about which I know very little.
Don't worry: I'm sure someone will say that if you use an Apple product,
it's all intuitive anyway, so you don't actually have to have knowledge
at all.
Better than that, with Apple there is no need to know.
It just works,

Jan
--
"There is no step three"
Paul Wolff
2018-02-02 11:17:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Ken Blake
OK, I changed Agent to 7bit / 8bit. Is that even better than Quoted
Printable (Mime)?
Depending on the font you have told your newsreader to use, '8bit' can
look very like 'Shit', so be careful.
Post by Ken Blake
This is a subject about which I know very little.
Don't worry: I'm sure someone will say that if you use an Apple product,
it's all intuitive anyway, so you don't actually have to have knowledge
at all.
Better than that, with Apple there is no need to know.
It just works,
Yes, we found our 2TB network storage drive became unusable for all
other purposes because Apple's backup program filled it completely in
the background, instead of keeping backups to a manageable size.

Too late to tell me now that I should have intuitively partitioned the
disk to limit the damage it could do before Apple began its insidious
work.
--
Paul
J. J. Lodder
2018-02-02 14:15:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Ken Blake
OK, I changed Agent to 7bit / 8bit. Is that even better than Quoted
Printable (Mime)?
Depending on the font you have told your newsreader to use, '8bit' can
look very like 'Shit', so be careful.
Post by Ken Blake
This is a subject about which I know very little.
Don't worry: I'm sure someone will say that if you use an Apple product,
it's all intuitive anyway, so you don't actually have to have knowledge
at all.
Better than that, with Apple there is no need to know.
It just works,
Yes, we found our 2TB network storage drive became unusable for all
other purposes because Apple's backup program filled it completely in
the background, instead of keeping backups to a manageable size.
Too late to tell me now that I should have intuitively partitioned the
disk to limit the damage it could do before Apple began its insidious
work.
It isn't a backup, it's a Time Machine.
(indeed best run on a volume of its own)

Jan
J. J. Lodder
2018-01-30 22:23:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by J. J. Lodder
none of his postings gets through. (no kill file)
I only see his text if quoted.
A mystery, don't have that with any other poster,
His posts are all base-64 encoded; perhaps your ISP discards them
as binaries.
Quite possible, they are rather strict about things.
(They also filter excessive cross posting,
which is a great blessing)

Jan
Peter T. Daniels
2018-01-28 14:37:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Default User
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
No, but the sentiment makes reasonable, except that there are some
useful posters from Google Groups.
Are there that many from GG, useful or not? I'd think that you could probably plonk on an individual basis pretty effectively.
Brian (one of those currently, we'll see starting Thursday).
A while back, someone did some sort of research and discovered that 25% of AUE posters used GG,
making it the most popular of all the accesses used.

There are a few snobs who love to denigrate GG without knowing anything about it. But looking
at the complaints from the users of other ones, it seems to be quite high on the reliability scale.
Default User
2018-01-28 17:01:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
A while back, someone did some sort of research and discovered that 25% of AUE posters used GG,
making it the most popular of all the accesses used.
There are a few snobs who love to denigrate GG without knowing anything about it. But looking
at the complaints from the users of other ones, it seems to be quite high on the reliability scale.
As far as its function as a news service, GG has good points and bad. For those who read usenet on different devices (my current situation) it's nice that, for instance, home or work have the same view. No need to worry about the read posts being out of sync.

There was a discussion, I think on RASFW, about newsreaders that could be installed completely on a flash drive. That might be a solution for some. It wouldn't help me any, as work blocks the typical usenet port. At one time I had a work-around, but I doubt that is in effect anymore.

The main disadvantage is probably lack of a killfile. There are also some formatting oddities and a lack of control over them. In general, the lack of customization is annoying to long-time usenet participants accustomed to dedicated newsreaders.


Brian
Peter T. Daniels
2018-01-28 21:00:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Default User
Post by Peter T. Daniels
A while back, someone did some sort of research and discovered that 25% of AUE posters used GG,
making it the most popular of all the accesses used.
There are a few snobs who love to denigrate GG without knowing anything about it. But looking
at the complaints from the users of other ones, it seems to be quite high on the reliability scale.
As far as its function as a news service, GG has good points and bad. For those who read usenet on different devices (my current situation) it's nice that, for instance, home or work have the same view. No need to worry about the read posts being out of sync.
There was a discussion, I think on RASFW, about newsreaders that could be installed completely on a flash drive. That might be a solution for some. It wouldn't help me any, as work blocks the typical usenet port. At one time I had a work-around, but I doubt that is in effect anymore.
The main disadvantage is probably lack of a killfile. There are also some formatting oddities and a lack of control over them. In general, the lack of customization is annoying to long-time usenet participants accustomed to dedicated newsreaders.
You may be referring to "computer engineers" or computer jocks such as seem to
overpopulate this particular newsgroup. If one of them starts reminiscing about
software they used 30 or 40 years ago, they'll all chime in, and the thread
will never drift.

The other thing, that some apparently see as a major annoyance, is that you
need to hit Enter at the end of a reasonable length of line (ca. 72 characters,
to use the old typewriter standard). Otherwise your long, long paragraphs will
apparently run off the sides of the screens of people with inferior newsgroup-
reading devices, while GG simply wraps them in whatever size window you've made.
David Kleinecke
2018-01-28 21:50:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Default User
Post by Peter T. Daniels
A while back, someone did some sort of research and discovered that 25% of AUE posters used GG,
making it the most popular of all the accesses used.
There are a few snobs who love to denigrate GG without knowing anything about it. But looking
at the complaints from the users of other ones, it seems to be quite high on the reliability scale.
As far as its function as a news service, GG has good points and bad. For those who read usenet on different devices (my current situation) it's nice that, for instance, home or work have the same view. No need to worry about the read posts being out of sync.
There was a discussion, I think on RASFW, about newsreaders that could be installed completely on a flash drive. That might be a solution for some. It wouldn't help me any, as work blocks the typical usenet port. At one time I had a work-around, but I doubt that is in effect anymore.
The main disadvantage is probably lack of a killfile. There are also some formatting oddities and a lack of control over them. In general, the lack of customization is annoying to long-time usenet participants accustomed to dedicated newsreaders.
You may be referring to "computer engineers" or computer jocks such as seem to
overpopulate this particular newsgroup. If one of them starts reminiscing about
software they used 30 or 40 years ago, they'll all chime in, and the thread
will never drift.
The other thing, that some apparently see as a major annoyance, is that you
need to hit Enter at the end of a reasonable length of line (ca. 72 characters,
to use the old typewriter standard). Otherwise your long, long paragraphs will
apparently run off the sides of the screens of people with inferior newsgroup-
reading devices, while GG simply wraps them in whatever size window you've made.
Let's see: 30 years ago was 1988. I was still using Pascal.
Not something to get nostalgic about. 40 years ago was 1978.
I imagine I was still using Fortran. The good old days weren't
all that good.
Tak To
2018-01-29 01:35:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Default User
Post by Peter T. Daniels
A while back, someone did some sort of research and discovered that 25% of AUE posters used GG,
making it the most popular of all the accesses used.
There are a few snobs who love to denigrate GG without knowing anything about it. But looking
at the complaints from the users of other ones, it seems to be quite high on the reliability scale.
As far as its function as a news service, GG has good points and bad. For those who read usenet on different devices (my current situation) it's nice that, for instance, home or work have the same view. No need to worry about the read posts being out of sync.
There was a discussion, I think on RASFW, about newsreaders that could be installed completely on a flash drive. That might be a solution for some.. It wouldn't help me any, as work blocks the typical usenet port. At one time I had a work-around, but I doubt that is in effect anymore.
The main disadvantage is probably lack of a killfile. There are also some formatting oddities and a lack of control over them. In general, the lack of customization is annoying to long-time usenet participants accustomed to dedicated newsreaders.
You may be referring to "computer engineers" or computer jocks such as seem to
overpopulate this particular newsgroup. If one of them starts reminiscing about
software they used 30 or 40 years ago, they'll all chime in, and the thread
will never drift.
The other thing, that some apparently see as a major annoyance, is that you
need to hit Enter at the end of a reasonable length of line (ca. 72 characters,
to use the old typewriter standard). Otherwise your long, long paragraphs will
apparently run off the sides of the screens of people with inferior newsgroup-
reading devices, while GG simply wraps them in whatever size window you've made.
Let's see: 30 years ago was 1988. I was still using Pascal.
Not something to get nostalgic about. 40 years ago was 1978.
I imagine I was still using Fortran. The good old days weren't
all that good.
Yes, those were the good old days. After you started a compilation
or a make, you could sit back and read the newspaper or the trade
journals. How else could one keep track of the latest Dilbert joke
or undocumented feature in DOS?
--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ***@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
J. J. Lodder
2018-01-28 10:43:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by ADPUF
Ho plonkato tutti quelli che postano da Google Groups!
Qui è Usenet, non è il Web!
Is plonkare really an Italian verb? I don't recall seeing many Italian
words with a 'k'.
No, but the sentiment makes reasonable, except that there are some
useful posters from Google Groups.
The Fnordish people are excepted,
(if you still remember those)

Jan
(Sorry about being deliberately obscure)
ADPUF
2018-02-27 08:56:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by ADPUF
Ho plonkato tutti quelli che postano da Google Groups!
Qui è Usenet, non è il Web!
Is plonkare really an Italian verb? I don't recall seeing
many Italian words with a 'k'.
Sorry for this belated reply, I'm here once every full moon or
less...


Yes, in theory JKWXY are foreign letters used only for other
languages.

However many foreign (mainly English) words are used, not even
transformed like in Spanish (football -> futebol).

If you read an Italian newspaper you'll see many English words,
especially in the economy section, even when there are
suitable Italian words for the same meaning (trend/tendenza,
bond/obbligazione etc).

Journalists don't like word repetitions so English words are
chosen. Also journalists like to show how international people
they are.

WRT "plonkare": it's a common way to "italianize" an English
verb by adding the infinitive termination -are, and all the
other similar terminations for mood tense etc.
(f.ex. "pòstano" from "to post", 3rd p. pl.)

Anyway it's not true that I plonk GG users.
--
E-S °¿°
Ho plonkato tutti quelli che postano da Google Groups!
Qui è Usenet, non è il Web!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet
Ken Blake
2018-02-27 18:13:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ADPUF
WRT "plonkare": it's a common way to "italianize" an English
verb by adding the infinitive termination -are, and all the
other similar terminations for mood tense etc.
(f.ex. "pòstano" from "to post", 3rd p. pl.)
Anyway it's not true that I plonk GG users.
And here I was, with my poor Italian, completely understanding your
untrue signature!
Post by ADPUF
--
E-S °¿°
Ho plonkato tutti quelli che postano da Google Groups!
Qui è Usenet, non è il Web!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet
Dingbat
2018-01-11 03:02:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by the Omrud
Post by b***@gmail.com
What's it mean and what's its origin — and is that a better term than etymology?
It's from the bible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_quick_and_the_dead_(idiom)
"Quick" is an old word meaning "alive2.
Tyndale's English, like Indian English, seems to use the definite article
sparingly: <<... Christ which shall iudge quicke and deed ... - 2 Tim 4:1>>

When did using "the" as much as it's used now become de rigeur?
Harrison Hill
2018-01-10 19:13:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
What's it mean and what's its origin — and is that a better term than etymology?
"Quick" means "alive" and so is the opposite of "dead".

The "quick" is the sensitive skin around my fingernails. If
you have ever handled "quick-silver", you'll know that it seems
to be "alive", as well as merely fast moving.

"A spur that pricked to the quick".

Thomas North’s A Translation of Plutarch (1535-1601)

<https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/a-spur-that-pricked-to-the-quick-thomas-north.2648896/>
Dingbat
2018-01-11 03:04:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by b***@gmail.com
What's it mean and what's its origin — and is that a better term than etymology?
"Quick" means "alive" and so is the opposite of "dead".
The "quick" is the sensitive skin around my fingernails. If
you have ever handled "quick-silver", you'll know that it seems
to be "alive", as well as merely fast moving.
"A spur that pricked to the quick".
Thomas North’s A Translation of Plutarch (1535-1601)
<https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/a-spur-that-pricked-to-the-quick-thomas-north.2648896/>
Cut to the quick | Dictionary.com
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/cut--to--the--quick
Jerry Friedman
2018-01-10 19:46:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
What's it mean
Those are the two classes of pedestrians.
Post by b***@gmail.com
and what's its origin — and is that a better term than etymology?
Probably, if you want to know where the phrase comes from and why it
means what it means, not the history of the words in Old English
and maybe Proto-Germanic and Proto-Indo-European.
--
Jerry Friedman
Loading...