Re: Idiot spam attack on sci.lang


On 26 Jan, 02:28, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 25, 8:39 am, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 25, 2:21 pm, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:

That's because it's unfalsifiable. What does that tell you about your
"approach", considered as a scientific theory?

I always engage in discussions, I even tell people how
to do it: choose the worst I say and nail me on it.

They always do.

I never weasel away,

You always do.

I always stand my man. And
until now I won the discussions.

You never did.

I proposed numerous
reconstructions, daring ones. Nobody can point them
out as wrong.

Of course not. They have no basis in reality, there is nothing to
evaluate them against.

As long as you can't do that, with all
your titles and all your universities and libraries and
connections in your background, as long I feel entitled
to go on with my experiment.

You do not know the meaning of the English word "experiment."

Has anybody suggested otherwise?

They suggest that you stop plaguing us with the results, but "publish"
them in newsgroups where they enjoy discussing such things, such as
conlang newsgroups.

Of course, all the time, they try to send me away,
to conlang or so.

That's because what you are doing is _constructing_ a language.

What is a "Google account", and how do you "fill" it?

If you look up my profile you see a lot of messages
that have not been written and posted by me but by that
criminal who abuses my name and Google identity,
appearing in groups I would never visit. Or look up
"messages by this author": the same crap sent by
the criminal who abuses my name, my own messages
buried under them. Neither does Google remove that
crap from my account, nor can I remove it, and when
I report abuse I get ever the same robot answer.
They have a serious security problem.

Once again: What is a "Google account"?

Usenet in general uses protocols that have no security. How is that
specifically Google's problem?

If Google runs an account of my messages,

Ah. It appears that you don't know the meaning of the English word
"account."



then
they should not allow criminals who abuse my name
and Google identity to fill my account with his crap.
Their robot can always tell me they do their best
in order to improve the groups - when I see my
account filled with crap by a criminal, archived by
Google under my name, I say Google has a problem
and is a part of the present mess, probably owing
to their too fast implementation of ever new features.
They should consolidate what they achieved so far
before adding ever new features.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Google Groups (I didn't know this before being informed on this forum)
is only a portal to various Usenet groups.

Please excuse me if I am apparently teaching you (or others) to suck
eggs, but you don't seem to know much about Google Groups.

A Google account enables you to sign in and access a large number of
groups, any of which you can apply to join.

You then get presented with a full list of current discussions for any
particular group you're interested in (the vast majority of posts to
this group are spam, so it is difficult to read or respond to anything
of interest). You can then 'open up' any particular discussion, and
reply on a form provided (which usually doesn't work very well, as
you've seen).

I do not have any group posts emailed to me direct, so no amount of
personal spam filtering will benefit me.

You can also read a profile for each contributor. Yours records some
11,400 messages, to a range of newsgroups, amongst which 27 were sent,
in your name, to various groups on 24 January, with bits of rubbish
about Chinese brothels.

I, or anybody else, can access your full corpus of messages, at any
time, and form an opinion of your interests and character. It would be
interesting to have an analysis of your messages to see how many have
real content, and how many are just sneers or snipes at someone you
don't personally like.

This is also important because:

When Darkstar opened this discussion, I checked his profile, and found
that last September he had apparently sent out some similar spam-in-
another name (sporge?) messages.

I have never come across anything like this sporging in any other
group, or anything like the sheer volume of everyday one-off spam
messages, so my immediate suspicion was that Darkstar himself was the
instigator of some of this.

You, and others, may be sitting smugly behind your personal
newsreaders, but anyone else can read your profile, and conclude,
mistakenly as I did in Darkstar's case, that you might be an
instigator of this kind of stuff.

Google doesn't filter the stuff that is presented at its portal site,
and I think it should.

regards

Richard
.