🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 23:35:23 +0100, Alley00p <alley00p@mesazoic.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 15:47:22 +0100, "Peter Hucker" <no@spam.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 15:40:45 +0100, (akula) <akula@sharks.plc.ltd> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 14:21:53 +0100, "Peter Hucker" <no@spam.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 06:45:56 +0100, (akula) <akula@sharks.plc.ltd> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 16:18:53 +0000 (UTC), Chris Caputo
>>>>> <ccaputo@alt.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Did you ever stop to think just how stupid that is?  IF your servers
>>>>> ever attain two years text retention, that means that if one were to
>>>>> download headers from, say, alt.binaries.warez.ibm-pc.0-day two years
>>>>> from now, they would see a million REQ: dating back up to two
>>>>> years...just as an example.  Who the frig wants to waddle through all
>>>>> those expired text posts?
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess people have come to expect such moronic reasoning from you,
>>>>> Chris.  That's just one of many reasons why your NSP is third-rate.
>>>>
>>>> There are groups containing both chat and images.
>>>
>>> You're a fast learner, Chris.  They're called binary groups.
>>>
>>>> Why remove the chat before necessary?
>>>
>>> "Before necessary" what?  You get an 'F' in English.
>>
>> Short for "before it is necessary to do so", ffs.
>>
>
> (g) now, where oh where have I seen that 'ffs" used recently?

There's an acronym site somwhere that'll help you newbies.

>>> People that regularly follow any binary group (I suppose you're
>>> referencing the many picture groups, whether porn or otherwise) read
>>> the chit-chat and they're done with it, especially considering that
>>> the vast majority of "chat" in a binary group consists of REQ:.
>>>
>>> Once that REQ: is filled, there is no need to retain the text.  Even
>>> still, most binary groups are comprised of an ever-changing population
>>> of posters and leechers.  That fact renders most 'conversations' in
>>> such groups meaningless after a few months at the most.
>>>
>>> Besides, most downloaders don't give a rat's ass about what some moron
>>> named RedDog who posts from a Verizon account thinks.  They are there
>>> to download pics and videos.
>>>
>>> Most busy binary groups or hierarchies, such as the .mp3 and warez
>>> hierarchies have their own discussion groups.  Many of the major porn
>>> groups have their own discussion groups, as do the mainstream movie
>>> groups, etc.
>>>
>>> Given all the above, there is absolutely *no* reason to retain text in
>>> any binary group longer than the binary files themselves.  To do so
>>> would only serve to clutter up a BINARY group whose only purpose is to
>>> provide a means of sharing BINARY files, not text.
>>
>> Some groups aren't binary or text, they are BOTH.
>>
>
> Ah! no shit!
>
> idiot.

It wasn't a statement it was a hint.

>>> People don't subscribe to a BINARY group to look at the rants and
>>> raves of a control-freak named RedDog.  In such an instance, one DAY
>>> of retention is too long...and you would like to retain such idiocy
>>> for two YEARS or longer?
>>>
>>> As you are so fond of saying, Chris, once the reason(s) for
>>> subscribing to a group no longer exist, it will die (loose
>>> translation).  Clutter up a binary group with tons of old, meaningless
>>> text files dating back two years or longer and see what happens.
>>
>> How about looking for a solution to a problem with something in one of the many microsoft.* groups for example?
>>
>
> They have no problem - unless you're referring to yourself.

You misunderstood my sentence, try again.

>>> That is why first-rate NSPs expire text files along with binary files.
>>> Trust me, the issue has been well-thought out and researched by news
>>> admins with far superior intellects to yours, Chris.
>>
>> If he set everything to expire at the same time, I'd most likely leave for another provider.  I don't want the text disappearing very quickly just so people can get binaries for longer.  I might be on holiday for a couple of weeks for example.
>>
>
> asswipe, the time frame was "text files dating back two years or
> longer"

So?

>> P.S. is your brain too small to fit two people in there?  I ain't Chris and never have been, you're almost as dimwitted as the two trolls in here.
>
> hey asswipe, is your brain large enough to fit two people in there?

Using the same insult straight back is the work of a child.  Do try to grow up.


-- 
http://www.petersparrots.com    http://www.insanevideoclips.com    http://www.petersphotos.com

Hiroshima '45     Chernobyl '86      Windows '95