On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 15:12:57 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"Vic Smith" wrote in message
.. .

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:52:12 -0400, wrote:


If that's where he is when the mood strikes. Can you read headers?



Not sure if you're serious, since you were talking about pre 2.0 as if
you knew it. All 1.93 and previous Agent versions I've used use
header-based retrievals.
Options allow for message body retrieval upon header retrieval but
mine are set for headers only. I pull message bodies separately to
avoid pulling in spam.
Parsing the server side message ID's to match the Agent counters
when retrieving "latest" seems to be "slow" part of Agent.
Message body retrieval is normally very fast.

--Vic


Please refrain from exercising your remaining brain cells. We are supposed
to be in the "forget" mode.
You're making the rest of us look bad.

OK. I just forgot to remember to comment in another thread on balance
of trade, national debt, globalistic practices weakening America,
actually producing what you use and some other things that......I
forgot.

--Vic

wrote in message
...
On Jul 16, 9:51 am, JimH wrote:
On Jul 16, 9:28 am, "Don White" wrote:

"Jim" wrote in message

...

You don't close cases around here Jimmy boy. And we don't STFU because
a
deranged nincompoop tells us to.

Yeah but...just think how much the newsgroup would improve if you did.

Florida Jim has no interest in improving the tone and quality of this
NG.

Take a look at Don's latest contribution to the group. How does that
improve the group? How does telling people to STFU improve the tone
and quality of the group? How does your boyfriend WAFA's constant name
calling, and third grade insults improve the quality and tone of the
group? How does his constant lies improve the quality and tone of the
group?

I thought you left?

wrote in message
news
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:30:27 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 10:57:19 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 07:11:21 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Jul 16, 9:51 am, JimH wrote:
On Jul 16, 9:28 am, "Don White" wrote:

"Jim" wrote in message

...

You don't close cases around here Jimmy boy. And we don't STFU
because a
deranged nincompoop tells us to.

Yeah but...just think how much the newsgroup would improve if you
did.

Florida Jim has no interest in improving the tone and quality of this
NG.

Take a look at Don's latest contribution to the group. How does that
improve the group? How does telling people to STFU improve the tone
and quality of the group? How does your boyfriend WAFA's constant name
calling, and third grade insults improve the quality and tone of the
group? How does his constant lies improve the quality and tone of the
group?

I think it's pretty clear by now that NO ONE is interested in
improving the tone of the group. All sides continue to bait, and point
fingers. Not a one of you is helping things. Just a bunch of whiny,
ineffectual, pussies. EVERY_SINGLE_ONE



You're wrong. But that's OK.

It's definitely true that there are plenty of folks on both sides who
don't
give a crap. But to say 'NO ONE' is inaccurate. Are you including
yourself?

Sure. I'm not expending any great energy trying to fix the group.
There are some participants that I barely pay any attention to when
they post, and if it gets to the point where my eyes glaze over and
there's nothing entertaining enough, I'll probably stop bothering to
keep it on my list of regular stops. It's not that important to me.
There are many thousands of other groups on a variety of subjects
where I can waste the same amount of time. Whether I visit or even
post here doesn't make any difference. There are newsgroups where I
was a very active regular for many, many years that I haven't looked
at in years. I lost interest for one reason or another.
What separates me from you, Harry, Don, The Jims, loogyfreaks, etc, is
that I think you are all essentially the same, and all are the
problem. Even the ones who pretend to be peacemakers or the voice of
reason always manage to keep it going in the same direction. I don't
think any of you wants to improve the group. If you did, it would have
happened a long time ago. You are a bunch of talkers, not do-ers. As I
said, you all run around stirring up nonsense and old bull****, and at
the same time point fingers at everyone else. None of you REALLY wants
to improve the group, and I frankly don't care that much either way.


Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:52:12 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 13:49:46 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:42:14 -0400, wrote:


Can you read headers?

Does the bear **** in the woods?

--Vic

If that's where he is when the mood strikes. Can you read headers?

Just in case, yes. But I hardly ever bother. Too easily spoofed, and
my interests don't go that way.
As you can see.

--Vic

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:13:53 -0500, Vic Smith

wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:52:12 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 13:49:46 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:42:14 -0400, wrote:


Can you read headers?

Does the bear **** in the woods?

--Vic

If that's where he is when the mood strikes. Can you read headers?

Not sure if you're serious, since you were talking about pre 2.0 as if
you knew it. All 1.93 and previous Agent versions I've used use
header-based retrievals.
Options allow for message body retrieval upon header retrieval but
mine are set for headers only. I pull message bodies separately to
avoid pulling in spam.
Parsing the server side message ID's to match the Agent counters
when retrieving "latest" seems to be "slow" part of Agent.
Message body retrieval is normally very fast.

--Vic



I diodn't ask if Agent could read headers. I asked if YOU could read
headers.
You can't even answer that simple question. It's more and more obvious
that YOU
don't know how, or you would have read mine and known what newsreader I
use.


Great...another DK or Flatulent Jim. Just what this newsgroup needs to
inprove.
We seem to be going backwards instead of forward. Time to forget this Dwarf
Army business (too many clowns lining up to enlist)
We need a good old fashioned sheriff who knows how to deal with agitators,
instigators & enablers.

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 06:48:33 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:13:53 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:52:12 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 13:49:46 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:42:14 -0400, wrote:


Can you read headers?

Does the bear **** in the woods?

--Vic

If that's where he is when the mood strikes. Can you read headers?

Not sure if you're serious, since you were talking about pre 2.0 as if
you knew it. All 1.93 and previous Agent versions I've used use
header-based retrievals.
Options allow for message body retrieval upon header retrieval but
mine are set for headers only. I pull message bodies separately to
avoid pulling in spam.
Parsing the server side message ID's to match the Agent counters
when retrieving "latest" seems to be "slow" part of Agent.
Message body retrieval is normally very fast.

--Vic



I diodn't ask if Agent could read headers. I asked if YOU could read headers.
You can't even answer that simple question. It's more and more obvious that YOU
don't know how, or you would have read mine and known what newsreader I use.


The header of a post does not reveal the newsreader used unless one has
turned on 'Show All Header Fields'. I don't normally wish to see all the
header fields because then I must scroll down to read the message. Do you
keep the header fields shown all the time?

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 10:09:47 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:56:01 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 06:48:33 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:13:53 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:52:12 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 13:49:46 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:42:14 -0400, wrote:


Can you read headers?

Does the bear **** in the woods?

--Vic

If that's where he is when the mood strikes. Can you read headers?

Not sure if you're serious, since you were talking about pre 2.0 as if
you knew it. All 1.93 and previous Agent versions I've used use
header-based retrievals.
Options allow for message body retrieval upon header retrieval but
mine are set for headers only. I pull message bodies separately to
avoid pulling in spam.
Parsing the server side message ID's to match the Agent counters
when retrieving "latest" seems to be "slow" part of Agent.
Message body retrieval is normally very fast.

--Vic



I diodn't ask if Agent could read headers. I asked if YOU could read headers.
You can't even answer that simple question. It's more and more obvious that YOU
don't know how, or you would have read mine and known what newsreader I use.


The header of a post does not reveal the newsreader used unless one has
turned on 'Show All Header Fields'. I don't normally wish to see all the
header fields because then I must scroll down to read the message. Do you
keep the header fields shown all the time?

No, but Vic posted as if he knew what reader I was using, when he is
obviously clueless. This was a case where an intelligent person would
have looked at the headers before posting. He also can't seem to
directly answer simple and completely unambiguous questions.


The 'un-ambiguity' may be in the eyes of the beholder. Headers, at least in
Agent, are not the same as 'Header Fields'.

You asked Vic if he could read headers. He answered that he could. You
responded with a less than flattering comment, because you were referring
to headers when you meant header fields.

On Jul 17, 8:54*am, "Don White" wrote:
wrote in message

...





On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:13:53 -0500, Vic Smith

wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:52:12 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 13:49:46 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:42:14 -0400, wrote:

Can you read headers?

Does the bear **** in the woods?

--Vic

If that's where he is when the mood strikes. Can you read headers?

Not sure if you're serious, since you were talking about pre 2.0 as if
you knew it. * All 1.93 and previous Agent versions I've used use
header-based retrievals.
Options allow for message body retrieval upon header retrieval but
mine are set for headers only. *I pull message bodies separately to
avoid pulling in spam.
Parsing the server side message ID's to match the Agent counters
when retrieving "latest" seems to be "slow" part of Agent.
Message body retrieval is normally very fast.

--Vic

I diodn't ask if Agent could read headers. I asked if YOU could read
headers.
You can't even answer that simple question. It's more and more obvious
that YOU
don't know how, or you would have read mine and known what newsreader I
use.

Great...another DK or Flatulent Jim. *Just what this newsgroup needs to
inprove.
We seem to be going backwards instead of forward. Time to forget this Dwarf
Army business *(too many clowns lining up to enlist)

I agree, the group has went backwards ever since you and Harry and his
girlfriend JimH reappeared. Why don't you disappear again? And that's
not neccesarily meant to you, because alone, you're congenial, but
when you get with the other two, it's a threesome beyond belief.

wrote:
On Jul 17, 8:54 am, "Don White" wrote:
wrote in message

...





On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:13:53 -0500, Vic Smith

wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:52:12 -0400, wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 13:49:46 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:42:14 -0400, wrote:
Can you read headers?
Does the bear **** in the woods?
--Vic
If that's where he is when the mood strikes. Can you read headers?
Not sure if you're serious, since you were talking about pre 2.0 as if
you knew it. All 1.93 and previous Agent versions I've used use
header-based retrievals.
Options allow for message body retrieval upon header retrieval but
mine are set for headers only. I pull message bodies separately to
avoid pulling in spam.
Parsing the server side message ID's to match the Agent counters
when retrieving "latest" seems to be "slow" part of Agent.
Message body retrieval is normally very fast.
--Vic
I diodn't ask if Agent could read headers. I asked if YOU could read
headers.
You can't even answer that simple question. It's more and more obvious
that YOU
don't know how, or you would have read mine and known what newsreader I
use.
Great...another DK or Flatulent Jim. Just what this newsgroup needs to
inprove.
We seem to be going backwards instead of forward. Time to forget this Dwarf
Army business (too many clowns lining up to enlist)

I agree, the group has went backwards ever since you and Harry and his
girlfriend JimH reappeared. Why don't you disappear again? And that's
not neccesarily meant to you, because alone, you're congenial, but
when you get with the other two, it's a threesome beyond belief.




"...the group has *went* backwards..."

Crikey, what an uneducated, ignorant ass you are, Loogy.

wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 10:20:29 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 10:09:47 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:56:01 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 06:48:33 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:13:53 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:52:12 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 13:49:46 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:42:14 -0400, wrote:

Can you read headers?

Does the bear **** in the woods?

--Vic
If that's where he is when the mood strikes. Can you read headers?

Not sure if you're serious, since you were talking about pre 2.0 as if
you knew it. All 1.93 and previous Agent versions I've used use
header-based retrievals.
Options allow for message body retrieval upon header retrieval but
mine are set for headers only. I pull message bodies separately to
avoid pulling in spam.
Parsing the server side message ID's to match the Agent counters
when retrieving "latest" seems to be "slow" part of Agent.
Message body retrieval is normally very fast.

--Vic


I diodn't ask if Agent could read headers. I asked if YOU could read headers.
You can't even answer that simple question. It's more and more obvious that YOU
don't know how, or you would have read mine and known what newsreader I use.


The header of a post does not reveal the newsreader used unless one has
turned on 'Show All Header Fields'. I don't normally wish to see all the
header fields because then I must scroll down to read the message. Do you
keep the header fields shown all the time?
No, but Vic posted as if he knew what reader I was using, when he is
obviously clueless. This was a case where an intelligent person would
have looked at the headers before posting. He also can't seem to
directly answer simple and completely unambiguous questions.

The 'un-ambiguity' may be in the eyes of the beholder. Headers, at least in
Agent, are not the same as 'Header Fields'.

You asked Vic if he could read headers. He answered that he could. You
responded with a less than flattering comment, because you were referring
to headers when you meant header fields.

Sure, Harry. Whatever you say.

Harry is way out of his depth of knowledge when speaking about all
things USENET. I proved that a couple of years ago when I outed him.