| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
And we thought r.b.p. was dead!
I peek in this morning and see 10 new messages, in 1 old and 8 new
threads! How cool is that? Where would paddling be without the British Secret Cervix? |
And we thought r.b.p. was dead!
On Nov 11, 8:49 am, Oci-One Kanubi wrote:
I peek in this morning and see 10 new messages, in 1 old and 8 new threads! How cool is that? Where would paddling be without the British Secret Cervix? SPAM does NOT count as legitimate NG traffic! John Kuthe... |
And we thought r.b.p. was dead!
On Nov 12, 12:26 am, John Kuthe wrote:
On Nov 11, 8:49 am, Oci-One Kanubi wrote: I peek in this morning and see 10 new messages, in 1 old and 8 new threads! How cool is that? Where would paddling be without the British Secret Cervix? SPAM does NOT count as legitimate NG traffic! John Kuthe... True, but how does SPAM affect views? Google.com says that we've had 133 views over the past 5 hours, which is 26.6 views per hour. For comparison, another group I hang out on has had 742 views over the past 21 hours, which is only 35.3 views per hour, a slight increase, and that group is quite lively. I wonder if we just have more lurkers instead of posters than we used to. If so, why would that be? We're not at all a hostile group... --riverman |
And we thought r.b.p. was dead!
"riverman" wrote in message ps.com... On Nov 12, 12:26 am, John Kuthe wrote: On Nov 11, 8:49 am, Oci-One Kanubi wrote: I peek in this morning and see 10 new messages, in 1 old and 8 new threads! How cool is that? Where would paddling be without the British Secret Cervix? SPAM does NOT count as legitimate NG traffic! John Kuthe... True, but how does SPAM affect views? Google.com says that we've had 133 views over the past 5 hours, which is 26.6 views per hour. For comparison, another group I hang out on has had 742 views over the past 21 hours, which is only 35.3 views per hour, a slight increase, and that group is quite lively. I wonder if we just have more lurkers instead of posters than we used to. If so, why would that be? We're not at all a hostile group... --riverman I lurk more than I post because, while I have a lot of fun kayaking, lazing down a mellow river in the moonlight doesn't make for very exciting trip reports. When things other than that come up (like this post), I've got something to contribute (i.e., why someone lurks but doesn't post, even though nobody here is scary). Cricket |
And we thought r.b.p. was dead!
On Nov 12, 8:19 am, riverman wrote:
On Nov 12, 12:26 am, John Kuthe wrote: On Nov 11, 8:49 am, Oci-One Kanubi wrote: I peek in this morning and see 10 new messages, in 1 old and 8 new threads! How cool is that? Where would paddling be without the British Secret Cervix? SPAM does NOT count as legitimate NG traffic! John Kuthe... True, but how does SPAM affect views? Google.com says that we've had 133 views over the past 5 hours, which is 26.6 views per hour. For comparison, another group I hang out on has had 742 views over the past 21 hours, which is only 35.3 views per hour, a slight increase, and that group is quite lively. I wonder if we just have more lurkers instead of posters than we used to. If so, why would that be? We're not at all a hostile group... --riverman Dude. I'm hostile and YOU'RE pretty dam scary. And Kuthe is suchhhhhhh a cynic ("spam doesn't count as legitimate NG traffic", indeed! What is wrong with this poor jung feller?) |
And we thought r.b.p. was dead!
riverman wrote:
: On Nov 12, 12:26 am, John Kuthe wrote: : On Nov 11, 8:49 am, Oci-One Kanubi wrote: : : I peek in this morning and see 10 new messages, in 1 old and 8 new : threads! How cool is that? : : Where would paddling be without the British Secret Cervix? : : SPAM does NOT count as legitimate NG traffic! : : John Kuthe... : True, but how does SPAM affect views? : Google.com says that we've had 133 views over the past 5 hours, which : is 26.6 views per hour. For comparison, another group I hang out on : has had 742 views over the past 21 hours, which is only 35.3 views per : hour, a slight increase, and that group is quite lively. : I wonder if we just have more lurkers instead of posters than we used : to. If so, why would that be? We're not at all a hostile group... Do people actually use google to access usenet? -- John Nelson ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chicago Area Paddling/Fishing Page http://www.chicagopaddling.org http://www.chicagofishing.org (A Non-Commercial Web Site: No Sponsors, No Paid Ads and Nothing to Sell) |
And we thought r.b.p. was dead!
On Nov 11, Oci-One Kanubi wrote:
I peek in this morning and see 10 new messages, in 1 old and 8 new threads! How cool is that? Where would paddling be without the British Secret Cervix? On Nov 12 John Kuthe wrote: SPAM does NOT count as legitimate NG traffic! On Mon, 12 Nov 07, riverman wrote: True, but how does SPAM affect views? Google.com says that we've had 133 views over the past 5 hours snip I wonder if we just have more lurkers instead of posters than we used to. If so, why would that be? We're not at all a hostile group... Isn't that "133 views" only Google readers? I would think that figure would be only a small fraction of total views. Me for instance. I can't imagine trying to read newsgroups without a proper newsreader. And, I might add, hostile groups tend to attract posters. Unfortunately, they're usually the wrong kind. Rick |
And we thought r.b.p. was dead!
Chicago Paddling-Fishing wrote:
: Google.com says that we've had 133 views over the past 5 hours, which : is 26.6 views per hour. For comparison, another group I hang out on : has had 742 views over the past 21 hours, which is only 35.3 views per : hour, a slight increase, and that group is quite lively. Do people actually use google to access usenet? I did, to access several newsgroups that still have not appeared on my normal ISP's news server, such as rec.boats.paddle.whitewater. But the Groups.Google interface is SO BAAAAD and SO SLOOOOOOOW that I gave up. Are those Google views per hour accounting for Groups.Google only? |
And we thought r.b.p. was dead!
"Chicago Paddling-Fishing" wrote in message ... riverman wrote: : On Nov 12, 12:26 am, John Kuthe wrote: : On Nov 11, 8:49 am, Oci-One Kanubi wrote: : : I peek in this morning and see 10 new messages, in 1 old and 8 new : threads! How cool is that? : : Where would paddling be without the British Secret Cervix? : : SPAM does NOT count as legitimate NG traffic! : : John Kuthe... : True, but how does SPAM affect views? : Google.com says that we've had 133 views over the past 5 hours, which : is 26.6 views per hour. For comparison, another group I hang out on : has had 742 views over the past 21 hours, which is only 35.3 views per : hour, a slight increase, and that group is quite lively. : I wonder if we just have more lurkers instead of posters than we used : to. If so, why would that be? We're not at all a hostile group... Do people actually use google to access usenet? Some - probably the same folks that enjoy having a tooth filled. Most miserable interface I've encountered yet, bar none. Cricket -- John Nelson ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chicago Area Paddling/Fishing Page http://www.chicagopaddling.org http://www.chicagofishing.org (A Non-Commercial Web Site: No Sponsors, No Paid Ads and Nothing to Sell) |
And we thought r.b.p. was dead!
On Nov 13, 7:24 am, "Cricket" wrote:
"Chicago Paddling-Fishing" wrote in message ... riverman wrote: : On Nov 12, 12:26 am, John Kuthe wrote: : On Nov 11, 8:49 am, Oci-One Kanubi wrote: : : I peek in this morning and see 10 new messages, in 1 old and 8 new : threads! How cool is that? : : Where would paddling be without the British Secret Cervix? : : SPAM does NOT count as legitimate NG traffic! : : John Kuthe... : True, but how does SPAM affect views? : Google.com says that we've had 133 views over the past 5 hours, which : is 26.6 views per hour. For comparison, another group I hang out on : has had 742 views over the past 21 hours, which is only 35.3 views per : hour, a slight increase, and that group is quite lively. : I wonder if we just have more lurkers instead of posters than we used : to. If so, why would that be? We're not at all a hostile group... Do people actually use google to access usenet? Some - probably the same folks that enjoy having a tooth filled. Most miserable interface I've encountered yet, bar none. Cricket -- John Nelson ---------------------------------------------------------------------------*-- Chicago Area Paddling/Fishing Page http://www.chicagopaddling.org http://www.chicagofishing.org (A Non-Commercial Web Site: No Sponsors, No Paid Ads and Nothing to Sell)- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - In many parts of the world, its hard to find a free newsreader. Deja.com is fine for me. --riverman |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:56 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com