Re: Google/NOVA selective Usenet topic banishment



BradGuth wrote:

On Feb 4, 1:24 pm, "Hagar" <ha...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"BradGuth" <bradg...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:cfd29ae7-5f31-4d2a-a374-3f05494faff6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



On Feb 3, 1:57 pm, hhc...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Feb 2, 12:40 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Oddly but fully expected, I'm now getting the selective Usenet
banishment treatment of "An error was encountered while trying to
post, please try again later".

Why are only selective topics being robo moderated to death, as though
made taboo/off-limits to receiving my warm and fuzzy words of wisdom?

Are those insider pretend-atheists (aka rabbis) of Usenet getting a
little upset?
. - Brad Guth

Brad, realize that every poster once in a while receives the message:
"An error was encountered while trying to
post, please try again later" at least once a a while.

It isn't a selective thing, and simply indicates that there was a
transmission error encountered, that the Usenet server that you are
posting through was simply to buisy to at that instant to process your
post, or was mementaritly down. Sometimes when posting a very long
post, your connection to the server simply times-out (Google, for one
example).

Yes it most certainly was highly selective, because other pro-
government and pro-NASA replies to existing topics and of new postings
were getting through and sticking just fine and dandy, and of that
"please try again later" message wasn't just once in a while, but an
ongoing naysay Bot like imposed gauntlet for hours upon hours on end,
sustained throughout the entire day as long as I was trying to reply
to any of those existing topics, including those of mine.

Next time this happens to you, after receiving this message, simply
hit "send" once again after waiting for 30-seconds. You'll find
something wonderful will happen.

Been there, done that at least a dozen times per reply. Google/NOVA
simply didn't want to receive any more of my warm and fuzzy rants. Go
figure and imagine that, if you will.

BTW, as of lately it's taking hardly any posting from my account in
order to receive their other form of selective topic/author
banishment, "Your account or Internet address has exceeded our posting
limit at this time, please try again later."

I oserve that there is no shortage
of your posts on sci.energy.hydrogen so if you you are being censored
by some mysterious "Bot", it's not doing a very complete job! :-)

You silly spooks and moles obviously don't observe squat, which shows
us how either MI5/CIA cloak and dagger and/or summarily snookered and
dumbfounded past the point of no return that such wussy brown-nosed
folks like yourself actually are.

Lighten up! The only reason that many people post on this fractured
newsgroup is for recreation, plus in some rare altruistic cases to
help others in grasping a basic concept.

Harry C.

Grasp this basic concept, along with grasping your private parts; It
seems the general public and of it's media that are not already pro-
Jewish or Semitic controlled are being summarily orchestrated and/or
traumatized into the nearest toilet, and that mainstream status quo
toilet is already overflowing with the infowar crapolla worth of
disinformation so that whatever else of actual truth goes into their
cesspool simply isn't noticed. It's exactly what Hitler counted on,
and for the most part got from his Semitic Third Reich minions that
achieved such collateral damage, carnage of the mostly innocent
(including many of their own kind), and almost got away with global
domination.
. - Brad Guth

Have you thought about a stand-alone news service? I use GigaNews (about $
100 per year) and I've never ever had a problem posting or not being able to
connect.

Good point, although always seeing exactly whatever the public and
media gets to see is more than half the fun, whereas with a private
news reader you're entirely isolated and/or as much on your own as
you'd like to make it, as well as in need of an extra terabyte hard-
drive and a high speed internet access to boot.

I stumbled onto usenet in the early nineties I think (before Google
Groups, you know), and in those days a 1200 baud modem and a pretty
lousy PC running DOS was quite sufficient to access all the newsgroups I
wanted. There were only about 3000 NGs then. I used to telnet to a
remote unix box from my PC and get a kind of "soup" package of posts
back. Those were the days! Anyway, terabytes of storage and high
bandwidth are required only if you are a very ambitious usenet provider
to the public.

Usenet clowns do like keeping the public and media as far off the
tracks of anything potentially sharing of too much truth, as much so
as they can muster.

You don't really know what usenet is, do you? No need to be embarrased
about that. Lots of people even think it's part of Google. In order to
educate yourself, you should Google it, but for starters you can simply
peruse these FAQs, which attempt to answer the question "What is
usenet?":

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/what-is/part1/

and

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/what-is/part2/

The two parts are quite different in tone and content. The second part
is a critique of the first, to be exact.

Allow me to quote something interesting they slapped onto the end of the
first FAQ:

|WORDS TO LIVE BY #1:
| USENET AS SOCIETY
|--------------------
|
| Those who have never tried electronic communication may not be aware
| of what a "social skill" really is. One social skill that must be
| learned, is that other people have points of view that are not only
| different, but *threatening*, to your own. In turn, your opinions may
| be threatening to others. There is nothing wrong with this. Your
| beliefs need not be hidden behind a facade, as happens with
| face-to-face conversation. Not everybody in the world is a bosom
| buddy, but you can still have a meaningful conversation with them.
| The person who cannot do this lacks in social skills.
|
| -- Nick Szabo

c u

S.
.