Air New Zealand and Air Qantas ground Handlers at Brisbane Air Port. Did they Still my luggage?

"Alan Street" <agstreet@nonono_san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:190720050802477811%agstreet@nonono_san.rr.com ...
> In article
> <{NOSPAM-rm_to_reply}rec-scuba2005-FA14B4.07202419072005@news.giganews.c
> om>, H Huntzinger <{NOSPAM-rm_to_reply}rec-scuba2005@huntzinger.com>
> wrote:
>
> ? "Froggy" <hub666@hotmail.com> wrote:
> ?
> ? > Stephan Whelan wrote:
> ? > >
> ? > > Anyway - we're in the process of removing usenet from our forums as
all
> ? > > it does is seem to generate aggrevation on the part of both sides.
> ? >
> ? > Why would you do that?
> ?
> ?
> ? What it means is that the free service that Steve had been providing had
> ? proven to be more trouble than its worth, so he said "screw it".
> ?
> ? It mostly was probably in the area of drawing complaints that Steve had
> ? to deal with. Its a thankless job.
> ?
> ?
> ? Personally, I'm sorry to see such a free portal go away, as it was a
> ? valued service, even if it occasionally was the source of YA jerk with
> ? an axe to grind...we have plenty of those on our own anyway, so there's
> ? really no reason to pick on Steve any more than Google, WebTV, or even
> ? the anonymous remailers.
> ?
>
> I disagree.
>
> Providing Usenet access might seem like a nice idea, and for literally
> one or two people, it's a useful service (now duplicated by Google).
> But for the majority of participants on a web based forum, it provides
> a portal to a world they know nothing about and are ill prepared to
> participate in. Usenet is a very different place than web based forums,
> and many of the people posting to Usenet via web based forums have no
> idea where they are. The latest interloper was a perfect case in point.
> One of his crisicisms of me was that I didn't have a profile on Deep
> Blue, telling me that he had absolutely no idea he was participating in
> a Usenet newsgroup.
>
> People who know enough about the Internet to participate in Usenet, do
> so. Providing Usenet access through a web based forum simply duplicates
> access already provided by Google, and opens the door for really
> clueless interlopers.

There goes that ugly elitism that so defines you.

"Alan Street" <agstreet@nonono_san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:190720050802477811%agstreet@nonono_san.rr.com ...
> In article
> <{NOSPAM-rm_to_reply}rec-scuba2005-FA14B4.07202419072005@news.giganews.c
> om>, H Huntzinger <{NOSPAM-rm_to_reply}rec-scuba2005@huntzinger.com>
> wrote:
>
> ? "Froggy" <hub666@hotmail.com> wrote:
> ?
> ? > Stephan Whelan wrote:
> ? > >
> ? > > Anyway - we're in the process of removing usenet from our forums as
all
> ? > > it does is seem to generate aggrevation on the part of both sides.
> ? >
> ? > Why would you do that?
> ?
> ?
> ? What it means is that the free service that Steve had been providing had
> ? proven to be more trouble than its worth, so he said "screw it".
> ?
> ? It mostly was probably in the area of drawing complaints that Steve had
> ? to deal with. Its a thankless job.
> ?
> ?
> ? Personally, I'm sorry to see such a free portal go away, as it was a
> ? valued service, even if it occasionally was the source of YA jerk with
> ? an axe to grind...we have plenty of those on our own anyway, so there's
> ? really no reason to pick on Steve any more than Google, WebTV, or even
> ? the anonymous remailers.
> ?
>
> I disagree.
>
> Providing Usenet access might seem like a nice idea, and for literally
> one or two people, it's a useful service (now duplicated by Google).
> But for the majority of participants on a web based forum, it provides
> a portal to a world they know nothing about and are ill prepared to
> participate in. Usenet is a very different place than web based forums,
> and many of the people posting to Usenet via web based forums have no
> idea where they are. The latest interloper was a perfect case in point.
> One of his crisicisms of me was that I didn't have a profile on Deep
> Blue, telling me that he had absolutely no idea he was participating in
> a Usenet newsgroup.
>
> People who know enough about the Internet to participate in Usenet, do
> so. Providing Usenet access through a web based forum simply duplicates
> access already provided by Google, and opens the door for really
> clueless interlopers.

Heh... reminds me of WebTV...

"-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
news:1121786138.101216.203800@o13g2000cwo.googlegr oups.com...
> And FWIW, I really do loathe Google's current ("beta") format.

You prefered their previous format?

Chris Guynn wrote:
> "Alan Street" <agstreet@nonono_san.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:190720050802477811%agstreet@nonono_san.rr.com ...
>
>>In article
>><{NOSPAM-rm_to_reply}rec-scuba2005-FA14B4.07202419072005@news.giganews.c
>>om>, H Huntzinger <{NOSPAM-rm_to_reply}rec-scuba2005@huntzinger.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>? "Froggy" <hub666@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>?
>>? > Stephan Whelan wrote:
>>? > >
>>? > > Anyway - we're in the process of removing usenet from our forums as
>
> all
>
>>? > > it does is seem to generate aggrevation on the part of both sides.
>>? >
>>? > Why would you do that?
>>?
>>?
>>? What it means is that the free service that Steve had been providing had
>>? proven to be more trouble than its worth, so he said "screw it".
>>?
>>? It mostly was probably in the area of drawing complaints that Steve had
>>? to deal with. Its a thankless job.
>>?
>>?
>>? Personally, I'm sorry to see such a free portal go away, as it was a
>>? valued service, even if it occasionally was the source of YA jerk with
>>? an axe to grind...we have plenty of those on our own anyway, so there's
>>? really no reason to pick on Steve any more than Google, WebTV, or even
>>? the anonymous remailers.
>>?
>>
>>I disagree.
>>
>>Providing Usenet access might seem like a nice idea, and for literally
>>one or two people, it's a useful service (now duplicated by Google).
>>But for the majority of participants on a web based forum, it provides
>>a portal to a world they know nothing about and are ill prepared to
>>participate in. Usenet is a very different place than web based forums,
>>and many of the people posting to Usenet via web based forums have no
>>idea where they are. The latest interloper was a perfect case in point.
>>One of his crisicisms of me was that I didn't have a profile on Deep
>>Blue, telling me that he had absolutely no idea he was participating in
>>a Usenet newsgroup.
>>
>>People who know enough about the Internet to participate in Usenet, do
>>so. Providing Usenet access through a web based forum simply duplicates
>>access already provided by Google, and opens the door for really
>>clueless interlopers.
>
>
> Heh... reminds me of WebTV...
>
> Carefull, Chris, or you'll be accused of being 'elitist'...

--
Michael Wolf

-----

Cthulhu For President.
Why settle for the lesser evil?

remove stopspam to reply

Grumman-581 wrote:
> "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> > And FWIW, I really do loathe Google's current ("beta") format.
>
> You prefered their previous format?

Yes, I did.

The current format has some things about it that are useful, but
overall, I stuck with the original format until they disabled it to
force people into the Beta. It wasn't for a lack of giving the Beta a
try, then or now.


-hh

"Michael Wolf" <michael.wolf@advalvasstopspam.be> wrote in message
news:42dd1d35$0$30355$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be...
> Chris Guynn wrote:
> > "Alan Street" <agstreet@nonono_san.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:190720050802477811%agstreet@nonono_san.rr.com ...
> >
> >>In article
> >><{NOSPAM-rm_to_reply}rec-scuba2005-FA14B4.07202419072005@news.giganews.c
> >>om>, H Huntzinger <{NOSPAM-rm_to_reply}rec-scuba2005@huntzinger.com>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>? "Froggy" <hub666@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>?
> >>? > Stephan Whelan wrote:
> >>? > >
> >>? > > Anyway - we're in the process of removing usenet from our forums
as
> >
> > all
> >
> >>? > > it does is seem to generate aggrevation on the part of both sides.
> >>? >
> >>? > Why would you do that?
> >>?
> >>?
> >>? What it means is that the free service that Steve had been providing
had
> >>? proven to be more trouble than its worth, so he said "screw it".
> >>?
> >>? It mostly was probably in the area of drawing complaints that Steve
had
> >>? to deal with. Its a thankless job.
> >>?
> >>?
> >>? Personally, I'm sorry to see such a free portal go away, as it was a
> >>? valued service, even if it occasionally was the source of YA jerk with
> >>? an axe to grind...we have plenty of those on our own anyway, so
there's
> >>? really no reason to pick on Steve any more than Google, WebTV, or even
> >>? the anonymous remailers.
> >>?
> >>
> >>I disagree.
> >>
> >>Providing Usenet access might seem like a nice idea, and for literally
> >>one or two people, it's a useful service (now duplicated by Google).
> >>But for the majority of participants on a web based forum, it provides
> >>a portal to a world they know nothing about and are ill prepared to
> >>participate in. Usenet is a very different place than web based forums,
> >>and many of the people posting to Usenet via web based forums have no
> >>idea where they are. The latest interloper was a perfect case in point.
> >>One of his crisicisms of me was that I didn't have a profile on Deep
> >>Blue, telling me that he had absolutely no idea he was participating in
> >>a Usenet newsgroup.
> >>
> >>People who know enough about the Internet to participate in Usenet, do
> >>so. Providing Usenet access through a web based forum simply duplicates
> >>access already provided by Google, and opens the door for really
> >>clueless interlopers.
> >
> >
> > Heh... reminds me of WebTV...
> >
> > Carefull, Chris, or you'll be accused of being 'elitist'...

You know what they say... "if the shoe fits..."

>
> --
> Michael Wolf
>
> -----
>
> Cthulhu For President.
> Why settle for the lesser evil?
>
> remove stopspam to reply

"Scott" <pugetsounddiver@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:mF8De.14$NS2.4965@news.uswest.net...

>> People who know enough about the Internet to participate in Usenet, do
>> so. Providing Usenet access through a web based forum simply duplicates
>> access already provided by Google, and opens the door for really
>> clueless interlopers.
>
> There goes that ugly elitism that so defines you.

Based on your presence, it's obvious that we're not screening out all the
really clueless.

Scott wrote:

> "Alan Street" <agstreet@nonono_san.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:190720050802477811%agstreet@nonono_san.rr.com ...
>
>>In article
>><{NOSPAM-rm_to_reply}rec-scuba2005-FA14B4.07202419072005@news.giganews.c
>>om>, H Huntzinger <{NOSPAM-rm_to_reply}rec-scuba2005@huntzinger.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>? "Froggy" <hub666@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>?
>>? > Stephan Whelan wrote:
>>? > >
>>? > > Anyway - we're in the process of removing usenet from our forums as
>
> all
>
>>? > > it does is seem to generate aggrevation on the part of both sides.
>>? >
>>? > Why would you do that?
>>?
>>?
>>? What it means is that the free service that Steve had been providing had
>>? proven to be more trouble than its worth, so he said "screw it".
>>?
>>? It mostly was probably in the area of drawing complaints that Steve had
>>? to deal with. Its a thankless job.
>>?
>>?
>>? Personally, I'm sorry to see such a free portal go away, as it was a
>>? valued service, even if it occasionally was the source of YA jerk with
>>? an axe to grind...we have plenty of those on our own anyway, so there's
>>? really no reason to pick on Steve any more than Google, WebTV, or even
>>? the anonymous remailers.
>>?
>>
>>I disagree.
>>
>>Providing Usenet access might seem like a nice idea, and for literally
>>one or two people, it's a useful service (now duplicated by Google).
>>But for the majority of participants on a web based forum, it provides
>>a portal to a world they know nothing about and are ill prepared to
>>participate in. Usenet is a very different place than web based forums,
>>and many of the people posting to Usenet via web based forums have no
>>idea where they are. The latest interloper was a perfect case in point.
>>One of his crisicisms of me was that I didn't have a profile on Deep
>>Blue, telling me that he had absolutely no idea he was participating in
>>a Usenet newsgroup.
>>
>>People who know enough about the Internet to participate in Usenet, do
>>so. Providing Usenet access through a web based forum simply duplicates
>>access already provided by Google, and opens the door for really
>>clueless interlopers.
>
>
> There goes that ugly elitism that so defines you.
>
>
But he IS right in this case.

--

"Tolerance is the virtue of a man without convictions"
G.K. Chesterton

Chris Guynn wrote:

> "Alan Street" <agstreet@nonono_san.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:190720050802477811%agstreet@nonono_san.rr.com ...
>
>>In article
>><{NOSPAM-rm_to_reply}rec-scuba2005-FA14B4.07202419072005@news.giganews.c
>>om>, H Huntzinger <{NOSPAM-rm_to_reply}rec-scuba2005@huntzinger.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>? "Froggy" <hub666@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>?
>>? > Stephan Whelan wrote:
>>? > >
>>? > > Anyway - we're in the process of removing usenet from our forums as
>
> all
>
>>? > > it does is seem to generate aggrevation on the part of both sides.
>>? >
>>? > Why would you do that?
>>?
>>?
>>? What it means is that the free service that Steve had been providing had
>>? proven to be more trouble than its worth, so he said "screw it".
>>?
>>? It mostly was probably in the area of drawing complaints that Steve had
>>? to deal with. Its a thankless job.
>>?
>>?
>>? Personally, I'm sorry to see such a free portal go away, as it was a
>>? valued service, even if it occasionally was the source of YA jerk with
>>? an axe to grind...we have plenty of those on our own anyway, so there's
>>? really no reason to pick on Steve any more than Google, WebTV, or even
>>? the anonymous remailers.
>>?
>>
>>I disagree.
>>
>>Providing Usenet access might seem like a nice idea, and for literally
>>one or two people, it's a useful service (now duplicated by Google).
>>But for the majority of participants on a web based forum, it provides
>>a portal to a world they know nothing about and are ill prepared to
>>participate in. Usenet is a very different place than web based forums,
>>and many of the people posting to Usenet via web based forums have no
>>idea where they are. The latest interloper was a perfect case in point.
>>One of his crisicisms of me was that I didn't have a profile on Deep
>>Blue, telling me that he had absolutely no idea he was participating in
>>a Usenet newsgroup.
>>
>>People who know enough about the Internet to participate in Usenet, do
>>so. Providing Usenet access through a web based forum simply duplicates
>>access already provided by Google, and opens the door for really
>>clueless interlopers.
>
>
> Heh... reminds me of WebTV...
>
>
exactly

--

"Tolerance is the virtue of a man without convictions"
G.K. Chesterton

"-hh" wrote in message
news:1121788973.463263.183940@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
> The current format has some things about it that are useful, but
> overall, I stuck with the original format until they disabled it to
> force people into the Beta.

I guess I'm having an "Alzheimer's Moment" since I can't remember how the
original was different... I've found that if you change it from its default
to "titles only" and then display thread postings in chronological order,
it's acceptable for my use when I don't have access to a news server... I'm
not much for threading of the topics... I pretty much just read all the
topics in a FIFO ordering... If there was a way to just get a FIFO list of
all the posts to the newsgroup, that would be even better...