news:bqkhva$23h5ub$1@ID-169979.news.uni-berlin.de...
> news:bqfd9p$h7n$1@atlantis.news.tpi.pl...
>
> Hi Uncle Davey!
Hiya! How are you doing?
Family okay?
>
> > news:vsmcgbk7rg6nf3@corp.supernews.com...
> > > "Dr. Jason Gastrich" <news@jcsm.org> wrote in message
> > > news:FXFyb.60758$t01.39970@twister.socal.rr.com...
> > > > Uncle Davey wrote:
> > >
> > > > Excellent post, brother.
>
> I've read it and I agree, as well as with the excellence of Dr.
> Gastrich's research paper which has the same title as this
> thread.
Jason is good news. We need more Jasons.
>
> > > No, it's not. I didn't repost the articles to solicit the
> "opinions" of
> > the two
> > > of you on Baptism but to show that two postings which I made
> in the thread
> > above
> > > were removed from the archive on Google... along with every
> other posting
> > I made
> > > between Sept 20th and October 1st 2003 to that newsgroup.
>
> And along with many postings other people sent to that ng between
> those two dates.
>
> > Your "Uncle"
> > Davey
> > > claims to be responsible for that archive
>
> I doubt Mr. Mike Bugal can produce a message-id to prove this
> claim.
>
I haven't read one, but I've spent the last two days in Poznan, so I am well
behind.
(Nothing against Poznan, I hasten to add, but there's no cheap internet at
the hotel, and I worked too late to get much time in the cybercaff.)
> > and the deletion of those
> > posting
>
> They were not deleted; they have never been archived.
>
> I can testify that Uncle Davey would never do such a thing as
> deleting someone else's posts.
Thanks for that.
Quite apart from not believing in censorship, I don't have the technical
know how.
>
> Besides, if Mr. Bugal had taken the time to read the Google FAQ's
> and helpfiles, instead of making such fortuitous insults and
> repeating them ad nauseam in more than one thread, he would have
> known that Google does not grant requests to delete someone
> else's posts. The only exceptions are copyright law
> infringements, when Google, for obvious reasons, will hurry to
> remove the infringing posts.
>
That's interesting. You know your stuff.
> > > proves exactly the point that I have made in the last couple
> of days
> > concerning
> > > any Christian who doesn't walk lock step with you in that
> newsgroup!
> >
> > Please explain where I made any such outrageous claim.
> >
> > I am not responsible for the Google archive.
> >
> > I was pointing out that we are archived from 20th September.
>
> Maybe Mr. Bugal doesn't understand this; it means that no
> free.christians posts dating from before 20 September have been
> archived by Google.
>
I couldn't work out whether he didn't understand or didn't want to
understand.
> > Some threads prior to 24th September are broken, and so if you
> are searching
> > on the thread you won't necessarily get back to them.
>
> The way I understand it, is as follows: the Google archives
> contains *only* free.christians postings with posting dates after
> 19 September, and then only if at least one of the following
> conditions is fulfilled:
> 1. they were posted to threads which _started_ after 19
> September.
> 2. if they were responses to old threads (i.e. threads from
> before 20 September), then Google only archived them if they were
> crossposted to an archived ng.
>
> I think that some of Mr. Bugal's (and many other posters')
> messages are missing, because they were neither posted to new
> threads nor crossposted to archived groups.
Agreed.
>
> > I did check whether your non-standard spelling 'chutzbah' has
> been used in
> > free.christians to date, and Google thinks not, so either it
> did not
> > propagate properly through Usenet or you only sent it to
> non-included
> > groups. We can't do anything about it.
>
> Yet another circumstance that could explain the absence of Mr.
> Bugal's posts, is the fact that he changed his e-mail address on
> 19 September 2003; at the very least this should have made him
> think that he himself might have been the cause of his trouble,
> and not you or Dr. Gastrich.
>
Un-self-critical, that's a word that springs to mind.
> > Nobody is interested in censoring your views or keeping them
> out of any
> > archive.
> > Even blasphemers are not treated that way, and I wouldn't put
> you in that
> > category.
> >
> > Send them again, and this time they probably will be archived,
> barring any
> > technical problems outside our control.
>
> Meanwhile they have been "reposted". Interestingly the first line
> shows no message-id; did Mr. Bugal tamper with his own posts?
>
Shocked, I tell you.
> [...]
> > > It appears one of us knows what
> > > "integrity" means!
> >
> > In this thou spakest truly.
>
> LOL.
>
> > Uncle Davey
>
> isi
>
Hope you stay!
Uncle Davey
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
|