Skanky, 46 year-old bus-riding wastrel who wastes time and money
"whispering and sending "telegrams" in loser chatrooms and then drags
her lazy ass to Usenet and thinks it's also chat (but it's NOT), wrote:

>>>They are nothing more than a group chat.
>>
>>False. They aren't like chat at all. YOU treat them
>>like chat, because you're inconsequential and have
>>nothing meaningful to say.
>
> I can't believe

You're the one being argumentative about this. Chat and Usenet are not
the same thing. They're completely distinct.

>>Chat is real-time; synchronous. You see some small
>>outburst of what someone has said, and you - you
>>particularly - blurt out some inanity in reply. Usenet
>>is different. It is asynchronous. You see the
>>entirety of someone's post, and you can pick and choose
>>which parts of it to address. There may be - although
>>never with yours - more complete thoughts expressed.
>>
>>As usual, you'll argue, no matter how badly wrong
>>you're shown to be.
>
> I'm not wrong.

Yes, you are (as usual). Newsgroups are specifically defined hierarchies
of topical repositories within Usenet. Usenet is *not* chat.

Chat, whether IRC, instant messaging, or some similar means of real-time
communication, is entirely different in method, design, scope, etc.,
from newsgroups (Usenet).

> These groups are indeed

These groups are Usenet, NOT chat. Dummy.