Classic Shell

[Johnny]

Here's another one - this junk about Windows8 doesn't belong in a
Windows7 newsgroup!

Of course it does. I'm sure that anyone running Windows 7 is interested
in what is happening with Windows 8.

 

[JJ]

Does anybody have a link to 3.6.7?

SourceForge says 3.6.7, but the link downloads .8.

This?

http://sourceforge.net/projects/classicshell/files/Version 3.6.7 general release/

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

I'm aware the cross-posting is technically the correct way to go -
however, many people (myself included) now auto-delete all cross-posted
message without reading them, since nearly all the junk posts from
trolls and general mischief-makers are cross-posted. Deleting
cross-posts and anything from Google Groups too gets rid of nearly all
the rubbish in one fell swoop.

I could have altered a few words in one of the posts so that the message
were not identical, but I didn't think, as I don't make a habit of it,
anyone would be so petty as to pass comment. That's obviously what you
get for trying to be helpful to people.

I suppose having two heads/faces you could see into both groups at the
same time?

Just so you know, I totally agree with Zaphod Beeblebrox and Nil.

Please don't take this as a command to change your ways, rather take it
as an indication that your attempts at communications might fail, at
least for some of your potential audience.

 

[Robin Bignall]

According to my Webster's "nobble" means "steal" or "cheat". The Brits then
sure know how to find cute words for nasty doings.

Here's the Concise Oxford's definition:
nobble
· v. Brit. informal
1 try to influence or thwart by underhand or unfair methods. Ø tamper
with (a racehorse) to prevent it from winning a race.
2 accost (someone).
3 obtain dishonestly; steal. Ø seize.
– ORIGIN C19: prob. a var. of dial. knobble, knubble ‘knock, strike with
the knuckles’.

 

[Ken Blake]

Are you sure about that?

Completely sure?

No.

Pretty sure?

Yes.

True, but it's hard to spot which words are "like that".


Good man.

Thanks.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Completely sure?

No.

Pretty sure?

Yes.


Thanks.

También soy americano, y hasta esta tarde no conocí esta palabra
"nobble".

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

También soy americano, y hasta esta tarde no conocí esta palabra
"nobble".

But I seem to be confirming the answer to a question that Mike Barnes
didn't ask and Ken Blake didn't answer.

And that's without even *considering* the quality of my Spanish

 

[Ken Blake]

También soy americano, y hasta esta tarde no conocí esta palabra
"nobble".

I know very little Spanish, but if I correctly understand you, LOL!

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

I know very little Spanish, but if I correctly understand you, LOL!

If you correctly understood me *and* if I correctly wrote it

Definitely not a forgone conclusion.

 

[Steve Hayes]

You're using a sledgehammer where a scalpel would do. Real spam and
trolls are almost always cross-posted to many newsgroups, not just two.
In a case like this, you are creating more work and worse communication
for more people. If I had answered you in the other group, people
reading your message here would never know it. Even worse, they might
have actually spent their valuable time responding, only to find out
that all points were already addressed elsewhere. I don't know about
you, but I find it very annoying to have tried to be helpful only to
discover that I've wasted my time. Yours is an example where thoughtful
crosspost to a couple of pertinent groups would be a good thing.

Real spammers almost invariably multipost nowadays.

 

[Steve Hayes]

By the way, "nobble" is British slang, and until you used it here, I
had never seen it before. Since most of us here are Americans, it's
probably best if you avoid words like that (although personally I
thank you for teaching me a new word).

It is sometimes only when you use a word that you discover that speakers of
another dialect of English don't understand it. There are quite often
discussions about that in alt.usage.english.

I'm not sure, but I think that "nobble" also has different meanings in
different places.

[crossposted to alt.usage.english and follow-ups set]

 

[Nil]

Of course it does. I'm sure that anyone running Windows 7 is
interested in what is happening with Windows 8.

I'm running Windows 7 and I'm also interested in lowering my credit
card interest rate, lengthening my penis, and learning more about the
Miracle of Islam! Please, tell me more!

 

[Nil]

Real spammers almost invariably multipost nowadays.

You're right. I'm guessing that whatever software the spammers use to
blast out their ads just posts messages individually to the list of
groups they feed it. They might not even know about crossposting, and
they might consider it a liability if they did.

Crossposting to a couple of groups is usually legitimate. Extensive
crossposting is always a troll tactic.

 

[Mike Barnes]

Completely sure?

No.

Pretty sure?

Yes.

I'm not so sure. But I guess that most of "us here" have never posted
anything, so it's impossible to know their nationality.

Expecting all posters to know what English words Americans don't
understand, and to avoid using them, is asking a bit much I'd say. Apart
from anything else, it's boring. Deffo.

 

[Bob Henson]

According to my Webster's "nobble" means "steal" or "cheat". The Brits then
sure know how to find cute words for nasty doings.

Once again, I appear to have unintentionally caused controversy. If I
might suggest that an American dictionary is not a good place to look up
an English word I'll probably cause even more. The verb to "nobble" is
usually used over here in horse-racing or greyhound racing parlance and
means to interfere with a runner in some way so as to spoil its chances
of winning. It often involves doping in racing - but used elsewhere it
infers that someone has been stopped from doing something, possibly by
devious or nefarious means. You could nobble someone with a bang over
the head, kidnap, or, in the sense that I was using it, either by legal
threat, or by a payment of some kind.

Now I'll be in trouble again for being off topic - despite the fact that
I only replied to
an off topic message.

 

[Bob Henson]

I'm not so sure. But I guess that most of "us here" have never posted
anything, so it's impossible to know their nationality.

Expecting all posters to know what English words Americans don't
understand, and to avoid using them, is asking a bit much I'd say. Apart
from anything else, it's boring. Deffo.

Ah, but you forget the Uncle Sam knows everything, and is never wrong.

 

[Bob Henson]

You're using a sledgehammer where a scalpel would do. Real spam and
trolls are almost always cross-posted to many newsgroups, not just two.

Not in my experience - they have often been in just two similar or
linked groups.

In a case like this, you are creating more work and worse communication
for more people. If I had answered you in the other group, people
reading your message here would never know it. Even worse, they might
have actually spent their valuable time responding, only to find out
that all points were already addressed elsewhere.

Or they may not have the vaguest idea that the other group even exists.
My message didn't require a response, so none of your arguments are
valid. If I had been asking for a response it might have been different.
I was just trying to be helpful - which, as I have said elsewhere, I
will not do again.

I don't know about
you, but I find it very annoying to have tried to be helpful only to
discover that I've wasted my time.

Exactly. But, even at my advanced age, I learn. I won't try to be
helpful again!

Yours is an example where thoughtful
crosspost to a couple of pertinent groups would be a good thing.

But it would not have reached all the people who delete cross-posts. You
may not care about that - as I have no intentions of ever trying to post
a helpful warning again, it doesn't matter much to me any more either.

Any decent newsreader that I've ever used can set the crosspost control
to only trigger over a configurable threshold. I have mine set to 3.

Mine is all or nothing.

That wouldn't have made any difference. It would still be a multi-post.

So what if I had posted them seven days apart? Would that be
multi-posting? Who defines the difference. What if I had cross posted
and not set a follow-up to one of the groups - would that then be
multi-posting? Nearly all the cross-posts I used to see had no follow-up
set, so are just the same as multi-posts. If I had set a follow-up, and
people had not spotted it (many haven't even heard of the concept) I can
imagine people who suddenly found themselves posting in another group in
which they did not intend to post being very annoyed - it has happened
to me and I certainly have been annoyed. Not any more - they are all
deleted before I see them, that way my name will not appear in
alt.porno.windows.peepingtom by mistake.

Does any of it really matter? Isn't it better to take the message in the
spirit of helpfulness that was intended? Haven't you Yanks got anything
better to do?
Anyway, you may have got the message by now - I've said it quite a few
times - I won't do it again.

 

[SC Tom]

You're using a sledgehammer where a scalpel would do. Real spam and
trolls are almost always cross-posted to many newsgroups, not just two.
In a case like this, you are creating more work and worse communication
for more people. If I had answered you in the other group, people
reading your message here would never know it. Even worse, they might
have actually spent their valuable time responding, only to find out
that all points were already addressed elsewhere. I don't know about
you, but I find it very annoying to have tried to be helpful only to
discover that I've wasted my time. Yours is an example where thoughtful
crosspost to a couple of pertinent groups would be a good thing.

Any decent newsreader that I've ever used can set the crosspost control
to only trigger over a configurable threshold. I have mine set to 3.


That wouldn't have made any difference. It would still be a multi-post.

+1

 

[Wolf K]

Once again, I appear to have unintentionally caused controversy. If I
might suggest that an American dictionary is not a good place to look up
an English word I'll probably cause even more. The verb to "nobble" is
usually used over here in horse-racing or greyhound racing parlance and
means to interfere with a runner in some way so as to spoil its chances
of winning. It often involves doping in racing - but used elsewhere it
infers that someone has been stopped from doing something, possibly by
devious or nefarious means. You could nobble someone with a bang over
the head, kidnap, or, in the sense that I was using it, either by legal
threat, or by a payment of some kind.

Now I'll be in trouble again for being off topic - despite the fact that
I only replied to
an off topic message.

Sure, it's OT, but your explanation is exactly how I understand the
word. So, correctly used about Classic Shell.

Have good day,

Wolf K.

 

[Stan Brown]

I'm aware the cross-posting is technically the correct way to go -
however, many people (myself included) now auto-delete all cross-posted
message without reading them, since nearly all the junk posts from
trolls and general mischief-makers are cross-posted. Deleting
cross-posts and anything from Google Groups too gets rid of nearly all
the rubbish in one fell swoop.

I could have altered a few words in one of the posts so that the message
were not identical, but I didn't think, as I don't make a habit of it,
anyone would be so petty as to pass comment. That's obviously what you
get for trying to be helpful to people.

No, it's what you get for being knowingly inconsiderate. I'm with
Zaphod on this one.

By your own admission, you knew multiposting was wrong, but you chose
to do it anyway.

But wait, there's more.

The article was about Windows 8 and irrelevant to Windows 7. You
posted to alt.comp.os.windows-8, so there was no need to post your
article to a Windows 7 newsgroup by any method.