Plover wrote:

Wow, is that an ADVENT reference? "There is a giant snake here". "Use
rod".

> You have a misunderstanding of what that Google Killfile feature you quoted
> does. Your'e using Agent, not Ggoole to access Usenet so the above feature
> is useless to you. That is only for people who read Usenet VIA the Google
> Groups interface.

The purpose of the google killer is to delete the high percentage of
spam sourced from google and the high percentage of clueless posters
sourced from google.

I use eternal-september and they filter spam better than a google killer
does. As such one of the two reasons for it does not apply to me.

It's interesting that a lot of RFC folks kill banter sourced messages
because of the high percentage of cluelessness. I've tried blocking
google and what I saw was a lot of good topical posters on RFC post
through google. I tend to not mind cluelessness but the level on banter
has been high enough that blocking banter kept the group quieter for me.
I'm currently running without it and I'm undecided if I will put it
back in place.

Doug Freyburger wrote:
>
> Plover wrote:
>
> Wow, is that an ADVENT reference? "There is a giant snake here". "Use
> rod".
>
> > You have a misunderstanding of what that Google Killfile feature you quoted
> > does. Your'e using Agent, not Ggoole to access Usenet so the above feature
> > is useless to you. That is only for people who read Usenet VIA the Google
> > Groups interface.
>
> The purpose of the google killer is to delete the high percentage of
> spam sourced from google and the high percentage of clueless posters
> sourced from google.
>
> I use eternal-september and they filter spam better than a google killer
> does. As such one of the two reasons for it does not apply to me.
>
> It's interesting that a lot of RFC folks kill banter sourced messages
> because of the high percentage of cluelessness. I've tried blocking
> google and what I saw was a lot of good topical posters on RFC post
> through google. I tend to not mind cluelessness but the level on banter
> has been high enough that blocking banter kept the group quieter for me.
> I'm currently running without it and I'm undecided if I will put it
> back in place.

I kill *all* posts originating from google (via NewsProxy), and that
eliminates nearly all SPAM. Possibly it kills a few legitimate posters
as well, but that's an acceptable loss since most of the legitimate
posters are not using google.

On Aug 11, 8:54*am, "Pete C." > wrote:

> I kill *all* posts originating from google (via NewsProxy), and that
> eliminates nearly all SPAM. Possibly it kills a few legitimate posters
> as well, but that's an acceptable loss since most of the legitimate
> posters are not using google.-

*plonk*

On Aug 11, 8:54*am, "Pete C." > wrote:
> Doug Freyburger wrote:
>
> > Plover wrote:
>
> > Wow, is that an ADVENT reference? *"There is a giant snake here". *"Use
> > rod".
>
> > > You have a misunderstanding of what that Google Killfile feature you quoted
> > > does. *Your'e using Agent, not Ggoole to access Usenet so the above feature
> > > is useless to you. *That is only for people who read Usenet VIA the Google
> > > Groups interface.
>
> > The purpose of the google killer is to delete the high percentage of
> > spam sourced from google and the high percentage of clueless posters
> > sourced from google.
>
> > I use eternal-september and they filter spam better than a google killer
> > does. *As such one of the two reasons for it does not apply to me.
>
> > It's interesting that a lot of RFC folks kill banter sourced messages
> > because of the high percentage of cluelessness. *I've tried blocking
> > google and what I saw was a lot of good topical posters on RFC post
> > through google. *I tend to not mind cluelessness but the level on banter
> > has been high enough that blocking banter kept the group quieter for me..
> > *I'm currently running without it and I'm undecided if I will put it
> > back in place.
>
> I kill *all* posts originating from google (via NewsProxy), and that
> eliminates nearly all SPAM. Possibly it kills a few legitimate posters
> as well, but that's an acceptable loss since most of the legitimate
> posters are not using google.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Whatever...I'm legit, and the only reason I use Google is that I am
new to computers. My experience is in kitchens, not sitting in front
of a screen, until a few years ago...

On Aug 11, 8:59*am, spamtrap1888 > wrote:
> On Aug 11, 8:54*am, "Pete C." > wrote:
>
> > I kill *all* posts originating from google (via NewsProxy), and that
> > eliminates nearly all SPAM. Possibly it kills a few legitimate posters
> > as well, but that's an acceptable loss since most of the legitimate
> > posters are not using google.-
>
> *plonk*

Yeah, I second that!!

spamtrap1888 wrote:
> "Pete C." > wrote:
>
>> I kill *all* posts originating from google (via NewsProxy), and that
>> eliminates nearly all SPAM. Possibly it kills a few legitimate posters
>> as well, but that's an acceptable loss since most of the legitimate
>> posters are not using google.-
>
> *plonk*

This is both hilarious and irritating since spamtrap888 posts through
google and is therefroe incapable of doing plonks. Might not even know
what the word means just using it in an inappropriate manner.

Doug Freyburger wrote:
>
> spamtrap1888 wrote:
> > "Pete C." > wrote:
> >
> >> I kill *all* posts originating from google (via NewsProxy), and that
> >> eliminates nearly all SPAM. Possibly it kills a few legitimate posters
> >> as well, but that's an acceptable loss since most of the legitimate
> >> posters are not using google.-
> >
> > *plonk*
>
> This is both hilarious and irritating since spamtrap888 posts through
> google and is therefroe incapable of doing plonks. Might not even know
> what the word means just using it in an inappropriate manner.

And I did not see spam's post at all (other than in your reply) thanks
to my blocking of all google posts.

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 10:54:49 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

> I kill *all* posts originating from google (via NewsProxy), and that
> eliminates nearly all SPAM. Possibly it kills a few legitimate posters
> as well, but that's an acceptable loss since most of the legitimate
> posters are not using google.

I've never understood that shotgun attitude. I don't know if it's me
or my news provider (I use one that lets me view binaries), but I have
filters in place that take care of all but the occasional sneaky one.
I'm starting to think my news provider is better than I give it credit
for because I've seen spam messages with red x's next to them - which
means the post was canceled, but not by me.

--

Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

sf wrote:
>
> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 10:54:49 -0500, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
> > I kill *all* posts originating from google (via NewsProxy), and that
> > eliminates nearly all SPAM. Possibly it kills a few legitimate posters
> > as well, but that's an acceptable loss since most of the legitimate
> > posters are not using google.
>
> I've never understood that shotgun attitude. I don't know if it's me
> or my news provider (I use one that lets me view binaries), but I have
> filters in place that take care of all but the occasional sneaky one.
> I'm starting to think my news provider is better than I give it credit
> for because I've seen spam messages with red x's next to them - which
> means the post was canceled, but not by me.

I use a news provider that doesn't really filter anything, and I use
NewsProxy for my filtering. Since I still see plenty of valid content in
the various groups I follow, it would seem that the shotgun approach to
google is working well for me.

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 09:09:09 -0700 (PDT), merryb >
wrote:

> Whatever...I'm legit, and the only reason I use Google is that I am
> new to computers. My experience is in kitchens, not sitting in front
> of a screen, until a few years ago...

Merryb, how did you find usenet?

--

Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 12:17:15 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

> I use NewsProxy for my filtering

I think that's the one I've looked at a couple of times, but you have
to be very familiar with computer terms to understand what it's
talking about.

--

Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

sf wrote:
>
> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 12:17:15 -0500, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
> > I use NewsProxy for my filtering
>
> I think that's the one I've looked at a couple of times, but you have
> to be very familiar with computer terms to understand what it's
> talking about.

Not really, it's pretty simple and the filter is just a text file.

Some key filter lines:

* drop Message-ID:*googlegroups*
(self explanatory)

* drop xref:*:*:*:*
(drops stuff crossposted to three or more groups)

* drop From:*Onime*
(drop stuff from a particular poster)

* drop Subject:*OT*
(drop stuff by subject)

The google and crosspost lines get the bulk of the junk, and a few From:
and Subject: get rid of the other junk.

In article >,
sf > wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 10:54:49 -0500, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
> > I kill *all* posts originating from google (via NewsProxy), and that
> > eliminates nearly all SPAM. Possibly it kills a few legitimate posters
> > as well, but that's an acceptable loss since most of the legitimate
> > posters are not using google.
>
> I've never understood that shotgun attitude.

Well, I understand it, at least, although I don't agree with it, and
won't do it if possible. But yeah, when people post stuff like, "nobody
should *ever* respond to a post more than 24 hours old", I just think,
"WTF?".

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Aug 11, 9:53*am, Doug Freyburger > wrote:
> spamtrap1888 wrote:
> > *"Pete C." > wrote:
>
> >> I kill *all* posts originating from google (via NewsProxy), and that
> >> eliminates nearly all SPAM. Possibly it kills a few legitimate posters
> >> as well, but that's an acceptable loss since most of the legitimate
> >> posters are not using google.-
>
> > *plonk*
>
> This is both hilarious and irritating since spamtrap888 posts through
> google and is therefroe incapable of doing plonks.

Did you not go to sf's link? The javascript is buggy and I had to edit
it. It works for killing threads though.

>*Might not even know
> what the word means just using it in an inappropriate manner.

Pete C.'s posts add little to the discussion here.

On Aug 11, 11:52*am, spamtrap1888 > wrote:
> On Aug 11, 9:53*am, Doug Freyburger > wrote:
>
> > spamtrap1888 wrote:
> > > *"Pete C." > wrote:
>
> > >> I kill *all* posts originating from google (via NewsProxy), and that
> > >> eliminates nearly all SPAM. Possibly it kills a few legitimate posters
> > >> as well, but that's an acceptable loss since most of the legitimate
> > >> posters are not using google.-
>
> > > *plonk*
>
> > This is both hilarious and irritating since spamtrap888 posts through
> > google and is therefroe incapable of doing plonks.
>
> Did you not go to sf's link? The javascript is buggy and I had to edit
> it. It works for killing threads though.
>
> >*Might not even know
> > what the word means just using it in an inappropriate manner.
>
> Pete C.'s posts add little to the discussion here.

Ah, even out of the box, if you look at the threads in tree view, Pete
C's comments are omitted from the list. Unfortunately they're still in
the viewing pane.

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 12:58:38 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

> it's pretty simple and the filter is just a text file.

No white list? I've noticed people in the past saying although they
filtered google groups, they had a white list of posters they wanted
to see.
>
> Some key filter lines:
>
> * drop Message-ID:*googlegroups*
> (self explanatory)
>
> * drop xref:*:*:*:*
> (drops stuff crossposted to three or more groups)
>
> * drop From:*Onime*
> (drop stuff from a particular poster)
>
> * drop Subject:*OT*
> (drop stuff by subject)
>
> The google and crosspost lines get the bulk of the junk, and a few From:
> and Subject: get rid of the other junk.

Thanks. So I'd just alter the google example to change it to
foodbanter? What do the *'s do?

--

Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 11:48:38 -0700, Dan Abel > wrote:

> In article >,
> sf > wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 10:54:49 -0500, "Pete C." >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I kill *all* posts originating from google (via NewsProxy), and that
> > > eliminates nearly all SPAM. Possibly it kills a few legitimate posters
> > > as well, but that's an acceptable loss since most of the legitimate
> > > posters are not using google.
> >
> > I've never understood that shotgun attitude.
>
> Well, I understand it, at least, although I don't agree with it, and
> won't do it if possible. But yeah, when people post stuff like, "nobody
> should *ever* respond to a post more than 24 hours old", I just think,
> "WTF?".

Apparently you didn't comprehend that he was complaining about all the
posts he needed to catch up on after being away. <shrug> It's pretty
easy to cut down on reading if you limit them to the last 24 hours.
In any case, his downloading a boatload of old, irrelevant posts and
certain people (including you) not understanding why I said what I
said is not *my* problem. He is free to post to dead threads while
complaining about how much he has to read, you are free to reply and I
am free to kill both of you. Not that I will, but I can if I want.

--

Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

sf wrote:
>
> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 12:58:38 -0500, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
> > it's pretty simple and the filter is just a text file.
>
> No white list? I've noticed people in the past saying although they
> filtered google groups, they had a white list of posters they wanted
> to see.

It may have that feature, but I've never investigated it.

> >
> > Some key filter lines:
> >
> > * drop Message-ID:*googlegroups*
> > (self explanatory)
> >
> > * drop xref:*:*:*:*
> > (drops stuff crossposted to three or more groups)
> >
> > * drop From:*Onime*
> > (drop stuff from a particular poster)
> >
> > * drop Subject:*OT*
> > (drop stuff by subject)
> >
> > The google and crosspost lines get the bulk of the junk, and a few From:
> > and Subject: get rid of the other junk.
>
> Thanks. So I'd just alter the google example to change it to
> foodbanter? What do the *'s do?

* is wild card.

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 12:56:52 -0700 (PDT), merryb >
wrote:

> BTW, I'll be in your part of the world this time
> next week- either in the Redding area or Kelseyville- can't wait!!

KEWL! Which airport are you flying into?

--

Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 15:35:13 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

> * is wild card.

TY!

--

Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

In article >,
sf > wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 11:48:38 -0700, Dan Abel > wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > sf > wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 10:54:49 -0500, "Pete C." >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I kill *all* posts originating from google

> > > I've never understood that shotgun attitude.
> >
> > Well, I understand it, at least, although I don't agree with it, and
> > won't do it if possible. But yeah, when people post stuff like, "nobody
> > should *ever* respond to a post more than 24 hours old", I just think,
> > "WTF?".
>
> Apparently you didn't comprehend that he was complaining about all the
> posts he needed to catch up on after being away. <shrug> It's pretty
> easy to cut down on reading if you limit them to the last 24 hours.
> In any case, his downloading a boatload of old, irrelevant posts and
> certain people (including you) not understanding why I said what I
> said is not *my* problem. He is free to post to dead threads while
> complaining about how much he has to read, you are free to reply and I
> am free to kill both of you. Not that I will, but I can if I want.

You are correct. I did not comprehend that, and I didn't understand why
you said what you said, which was:

Message-ID: >

"when a thread is dead, we want it to stay dead. So please do
us all a favor and don't reply to any thread that has been dead for
more than 24 hours."

Thanks for explaining it.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 15:08:15 -0700, Dan Abel > wrote:

>In article >,
> sf > wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 11:48:38 -0700, Dan Abel > wrote:
>>
>> > In article >,
>> > sf > wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 10:54:49 -0500, "Pete C." >
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > I kill *all* posts originating from google
>
>> > > I've never understood that shotgun attitude.
>> >
>> > Well, I understand it, at least, although I don't agree with it, and
>> > won't do it if possible. But yeah, when people post stuff like, "nobody
>> > should *ever* respond to a post more than 24 hours old", I just think,
>> > "WTF?".
>>
>> Apparently you didn't comprehend that he was complaining about all the
>> posts he needed to catch up on after being away. <shrug> It's pretty
>> easy to cut down on reading if you limit them to the last 24 hours.
>> In any case, his downloading a boatload of old, irrelevant posts and
>> certain people (including you) not understanding why I said what I
>> said is not *my* problem. He is free to post to dead threads while
>> complaining about how much he has to read, you are free to reply and I
>> am free to kill both of you. Not that I will, but I can if I want.
>
>You are correct. I did not comprehend that, and I didn't understand why
>you said what you said, which was:
>
>Message-ID: >
>
>"when a thread is dead, we want it to stay dead. So please do
>us all a favor and don't reply to any thread that has been dead for
>more than 24 hours."
>
>Thanks for explaining it.

That's one nut-job of a woman.

Lou

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 12:56:52 -0700 (PDT), merryb >
wrote:

>On Aug 11, 10:34*am, sf > wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 09:09:09 -0700 (PDT), merryb >
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Whatever...I'm legit, and the only reason I use Google is that I am
>> > new to computers. My experience is in kitchens, not sitting in front
>> > of a screen, until a few years ago...
>>
>> Merryb, how did you find usenet?
>>
>> --
>>
>> Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.
>
>Just by screwing around when I had nothing to do at the time at
>work...I've had people here try to help me out, and as much as I
>appreciate their help, it's just not that important to me!! I spend
>very little time here, and I guess if I spent more, I'd probably do
>things differently...

I'm glad you found your way here merryb.

Lou

"Lou Decruss" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 15:08:15 -0700, Dan Abel > wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>> sf > wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 11:48:38 -0700, Dan Abel > wrote:
>>>
>>> > In article >,
>>> > sf > wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 10:54:49 -0500, "Pete C." >
>>> > > wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > > I kill *all* posts originating from google
>>
>>> > > I've never understood that shotgun attitude.
>>> >
>>> > Well, I understand it, at least, although I don't agree with it, and
>>> > won't do it if possible. But yeah, when people post stuff like,
>>> > "nobody
>>> > should *ever* respond to a post more than 24 hours old", I just think,
>>> > "WTF?".
>>>
>>> Apparently you didn't comprehend that he was complaining about all the
>>> posts he needed to catch up on after being away. <shrug> It's pretty
>>> easy to cut down on reading if you limit them to the last 24 hours.
>>> In any case, his downloading a boatload of old, irrelevant posts and
>>> certain people (including you) not understanding why I said what I
>>> said is not *my* problem. He is free to post to dead threads while
>>> complaining about how much he has to read, you are free to reply and I
>>> am free to kill both of you. Not that I will, but I can if I want.
>>
>>You are correct. I did not comprehend that, and I didn't understand why
>>you said what you said, which was:
>>
>>Message-ID: >
>>
>>"when a thread is dead, we want it to stay dead. So please do
>>us all a favor and don't reply to any thread that has been dead for
>>more than 24 hours."
>>
>>Thanks for explaining it.
>
> That's one nut-job of a woman.

She's not nuts. I think she's just forgetful. I know I am getting there
quicker than I want to be.

OBNotFood: Remember the winter you Maryland guys? Just came across this
looking for something else. I could use that cold relief about now.
http://i49.tinypic.com/2ziv474.jpg

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 22:57:28 -0400, "Cheryl" >
wrote:

>"Lou Decruss" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 15:08:15 -0700, Dan Abel > wrote:
>>
>>>In article >,
>>> sf > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 11:48:38 -0700, Dan Abel > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > In article >,
>>>> > sf > wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > > On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 10:54:49 -0500, "Pete C." >
>>>> > > wrote:
>>>> > >
>>>> > > > I kill *all* posts originating from google
>>>
>>>> > > I've never understood that shotgun attitude.
>>>> >
>>>> > Well, I understand it, at least, although I don't agree with it, and
>>>> > won't do it if possible. But yeah, when people post stuff like,
>>>> > "nobody
>>>> > should *ever* respond to a post more than 24 hours old", I just think,
>>>> > "WTF?".
>>>>
>>>> Apparently you didn't comprehend that he was complaining about all the
>>>> posts he needed to catch up on after being away. <shrug> It's pretty
>>>> easy to cut down on reading if you limit them to the last 24 hours.
>>>> In any case, his downloading a boatload of old, irrelevant posts and
>>>> certain people (including you) not understanding why I said what I
>>>> said is not *my* problem. He is free to post to dead threads while
>>>> complaining about how much he has to read, you are free to reply and I
>>>> am free to kill both of you. Not that I will, but I can if I want.
>>>
>>>You are correct. I did not comprehend that, and I didn't understand why
>>>you said what you said, which was:
>>>
>>>Message-ID: >
>>>
>>>"when a thread is dead, we want it to stay dead. So please do
>>>us all a favor and don't reply to any thread that has been dead for
>>>more than 24 hours."
>>>
>>>Thanks for explaining it.
>>
>> That's one nut-job of a woman.
>
>She's not nuts.

Coulda fooled me. Anyone who speaks for a group is goofy. If 24
hours is all her attention span can handle then she should be in a
chat room.

>I think she's just forgetful.

That's probably one of her many issues.

>I know I am getting there quicker than I want to be.

Does a post have no meaning to you if someone wrote it 24 hours ago?
You seem to be far brighter than that.

A thread isn't dead if someone replies to it. Some time back someone
here had a question. I had no answer or reply. 2 weeks later I
accidentally stumbled on the answer and found the post and replied.
He was appreciative and the thread was no longer dead.

SF "the kook" can follow her own rules but speaking for the group as
"we" and expecting anyone else to abide by her desires is nuts.

Lou

On Aug 11, 2:42*pm, sf > wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 12:56:52 -0700 (PDT), merryb >
> wrote:
>
> > BTW, I'll be in your part of the world this time
> > next week- either in the Redding area or Kelseyville- can't wait!!
>
> KEWL! *Which airport are you flying into?
>
> --
>
> Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

We are driving with a trailer- I'd like to take the kid to see Shasta
Caverns, Mt. Lassen, etc. Then I'm going to meet up with some gals
that I grew up- we moved to WA when I was 15, and I lost touch with
everyone. So thanks to Facebook, I'm going to see people I haven't
seen for 30 years.I think it's going to be a trip-in more ways than
one!!

On Aug 11, 7:01*pm, Lou Decruss > wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 12:56:52 -0700 (PDT), merryb >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Aug 11, 10:34*am, sf > wrote:
> >> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 09:09:09 -0700 (PDT), merryb >
> >> wrote:
>
> >> > Whatever...I'm legit, and the only reason I use Google is that I am
> >> > new to computers. My experience is in kitchens, not sitting in front
> >> > of a screen, until a few years ago...
>
> >> Merryb, how did you find usenet?
>
> >> --
>
> >> Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.
>
> >Just by screwing around when I had nothing to do at the time at
> >work...I've had people here try to help me out, and as much as I
> >appreciate their help, it's just not that important to me!! I spend
> >very little time here, and I guess if I spent more, I'd probably do
> >things differently...
>
> I'm glad you found your way here merryb.
>
> Lou- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Thank you, Lou!

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 15:48:01 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger wrote:

> Plover wrote:
>
> Wow, is that an ADVENT reference? "There is a giant snake here". "Use
> rod".
>
>> You have a misunderstanding of what that Google Killfile feature you quoted
>> does. Your'e using Agent, not Ggoole to access Usenet so the above feature
>> is useless to you. That is only for people who read Usenet VIA the Google
>> Groups interface.
>
> The purpose of the google killer is to delete the high percentage of
> spam sourced from google and the high percentage of clueless posters
> sourced from google.
>
> I use eternal-september and they filter spam better than a google killer
> does. As such one of the two reasons for it does not apply to me.
>
> It's interesting that a lot of RFC folks kill banter sourced messages
> because of the high percentage of cluelessness. I've tried blocking
> google and what I saw was a lot of good topical posters on RFC post
> through google. I tend to not mind cluelessness but the level on banter
> has been high enough that blocking banter kept the group quieter for me.
> I'm currently running without it and I'm undecided if I will put it
> back in place.

it seems to me that the foodbanter people come in spates. not sure why
that would be.

your pal,
blake

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 22:57:28 -0400, Cheryl wrote:

>
> OBNotFood: Remember the winter you Maryland guys? Just came across this
> looking for something else. I could use that cold relief about now.
> http://i49.tinypic.com/2ziv474.jpg

i think i prefer the heat.

your pal,
blake

Pete C. wrote:
>
> Not really, it's pretty simple and the filter is just a text file.
>
> Some key filter lines:

I use XPN which shares its filtering language with some other readers:

!kill Xpost %>3
!kill From "banter"
!kill From "webtv.net"

I also have a list of specific groups to kill whereever they appear and
a list of individual authors. Folks wanting to drop google could
replace either my banter or webtv line with googlegroups.

On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 10:20:54 -0700 (PDT), merryb >
wrote:

> We are driving with a trailer- I'd like to take the kid to see Shasta
> Caverns, Mt. Lassen, etc. Then I'm going to meet up with some gals
> that I grew up- we moved to WA when I was 15, and I lost touch with
> everyone. So thanks to Facebook, I'm going to see people I haven't
> seen for 30 years.I think it's going to be a trip-in more ways than
> one!!

Have a safe trip! Glad to hear you're catching up with friends you
haven't seen in so long too.

I joined FB with the idea of finding the person who was my childhood
best friend. It turns out there are 500 people on FB with her name
and 499 don't have a profile photo. Turns out she's not on FB anyway,
but she ended up calling me out of the blue (we don't have any friends
in common) just a couple of months later. I guess I was sending
strong vibes her way.

--

Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.