On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 06:25:53PM +, Woodchuck Bill wrote:
>
> Jan, Gary may be blunt at times, but try to understand things from his
> perspective. He is posting to Usenet. He expects his replies to appear on
> Usenet. You are accustomed to your way of writing and reading messages. He
> i
On 12/1/2004 1:25 PM, Woodchuck Bill wrote:
Jan, Gary may be blunt at times, but try to understand things from his
perspective. He is posting to Usenet. He expects his replies to appear on
Usenet. You are accustomed to your way of writing and reading messages. He
is accustomed to his way. Perhaps
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jan Wieck) wrote in news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> On 11/30/2004 2:37 PM, Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>
>> Perhaps I wasn't clear. I don't care WHO you are. I've already asked
>> you once to stay out of my email. Further emails from you will be
>> reported to both Yahoo and Comcast as
On 11/30/2004 11:46 PM, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004, Jan Wieck wrote:
On 11/30/2004 2:37 PM, Gary L. Burnore wrote:
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I don't care WHO you are. I've already asked you
once to stay out of my email. Further emails from you will be reported to
both Yahoo and C
Tom Lane wrote:
Jan Wieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Oh my,
after reading this he really caught my attention. You have to google for
"Gary Burnore" a little. This guy has a record ...
gburnore was known far and wide as a net.asshole when I dropped out of
Usenet, lo these many years ago. Doesn'
Jan Wieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Oh my,
> after reading this he really caught my attention. You have to google for
> "Gary Burnore" a little. This guy has a record ...
gburnore was known far and wide as a net.asshole when I dropped out of
Usenet, lo these many years ago. Doesn't look lik
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004, Jan Wieck wrote:
On 11/30/2004 2:37 PM, Gary L. Burnore wrote:
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I don't care WHO you are. I've already asked you
once to stay out of my email. Further emails from you will be reported to
both Yahoo and Comcast as harassment.
I'm not on your list.
On 11/30/2004 2:37 PM, Gary L. Burnore wrote:
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I don't care WHO you are. I've already asked you
once to stay out of my email. Further emails from you will be reported to
both Yahoo and Comcast as harassment.
I'm not on your list.
_I_ am posting to a USENet discussion
On 11/29/2004 11:53 PM, Gary L. Burnore wrote:
Stay out of my email.
This ia a PostgreSQL related topic discussed on PostgreSQL mailing lists
and you react like this to a mail from a PostgreSQL CORE team member?
Rethink your attitude.
Jan
At 11:50 PM 11/29/2004, you wrote:
On 11/23/2004 4:46 PM
On 11/23/2004 4:37 PM, Woodchuck Bill wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Patrick B Kelly) wrote in news:E55E257B-3D95-11D9-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The list has been deluged with
countless angry process oriented messages filled with vitriol and
devoid of any content regarding the purpose of this forum, we ha
On 11/23/2004 4:46 PM, Gary L. Burnore wrote:
It's ok. Mysql's better anyway.
This is the attitude I've seen from many of the pro-usenet people. If I
don't get it my way I will bash your project and try to do harm.
I am too one of those who have left usenet many years ago. Partly
because of people
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Gary L. Burnore") writes:
>It appears that his aliiasing hasn't actually taken effect yet. Once it
>does, apparently things will be slightly better because he's then sending
>posts to pgsql.* not comp.databases.postgres.* .As of a short while
>ago, we were still receivin
On 2004-11-24, Marc G Fournier From : <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew - Supernews) writes:
>>Any chance of there being regular (or even only occasional) signed
>>checkgroups messages for the new hierarchy?
>
> Sure, but I've never done it before, so if you can help ... ?
Sur
On 2004-11-23, "Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>>> Due to recent action by Google concerning the
>>> comp.databases.postgresql.* hierarchy, we are going to make some
>>> changes that should satisfy just about ev
On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 09:07:04PM -0500, Gary L. Burnore wrote:
> We've removed all of the comp.databases.postgres.* groups from our server
> and our feeds anyway. Do did google. So will anyone else who's still
> holding the bogus groups.
>
> Basically, the thing that Marc is doing that's 'ba
I'm not sure, (RFC2822 grammar parsing is touchy stuff) but I think this email
address you posted from is messed up:
"\"\\"Marc G. Fournier From\\"@svr1.postgresql.org\":" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
That is, I think the display-name part of the address after unquoting is:
"\Marc G. Fournier From [EMAI
4 5:18 PM
>> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Upcoming Changes to News Server ...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > "Gary L. Burnore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > >
>> > [snip]
>> > >
>&
> Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 5:18 PM
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Upcoming Changes to News Server ...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Gary L. Burnore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
"\"Marc G. Fournier From\"@svr1.postgresql.org"@linxnet.com: <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Seymour) writes:
>
> >Here's another factoid for you. When a new big-8 newsgroup is
> >approved, an "official" newsgroup creation control message is sent.
> >Well, somebody *forged
At 08:58 PM 11/23/2004, you wrote:
ctlinnd rmgroup comp.databases.postgresql.interfaces.php
ctlinnd rmgroup comp.databases.postgresql.ports.general
ctlinnd rmgroup comp.databases.postgresql.interfaces
ctlinnd rmgroup comp.databases.postgresql.ports
ctlinnd rmgroup comp.databases.postgresql.interfac
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Gary L. Burnore") writes:
>At 05:28 PM 11/23/2004, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>Jim Seymour wrote:
>>>"Gary L. Burnore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>[snip]
>>>
It's ok. Mysql's better anyway.
>>>
>>>Was that absolutely necessary?
>Of course not.
>>Yes. It shows his lack of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Seymour) writes:
>Here's another factoid for you. When a new big-8 newsgroup is
>approved, an "official" newsgroup creation control message is sent.
>Well, somebody *forged* just such a control message for one-or-more
>comp.databases.postgresql.* newsgroups.
That was *not*
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Patrick B Kelly) wrote in news:E55E257B-3D95-11D9-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> On Nov 23, 2004, at 3:59 PM, Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 15:37:56 -0400 (AST), [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> ("Marc G. Fournier") wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Due to recent action by Google concerning the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Seymour) wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> The key words there being "think about," IMO. For example, the part
> about "would have even more prestige." Really? My news server at work
> doesn't carry such newsgroups at all. Which is pretty much the point
> somebody else
ctlinnd rmgroup comp.databases.postgresql.interfaces.php
ctlinnd rmgroup comp.databases.postgresql.ports.general
ctlinnd rmgroup comp.databases.postgresql.interfaces
ctlinnd rmgroup comp.databases.postgresql.ports
ctlinnd rmgroup comp.databases.postgresql.interfaces.general
ctlinnd rmgroup comp.da
Gary L. Burnore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> And not helping postgres since less NSP's will carry the groups and
> the postgres message.
>
> It's ok. Mysql's better anyway.
>
Gary, why do your posts show up twice in postgresql.general? Different
message IDs for each
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Marc G. Fournier") wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>
> Due to recent action by Google concerning the
> comp.databases.postgresql.* hierarchy, we are going to make some
> changes that should satisfy just about everyone ... over the next
> 24hrs or so, traffic *to* comp.databa
2004 5:18 PM
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Upcoming Changes to News Server ...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Gary L. Burnore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > [snip]
> > > >
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Patrick B Kelly) wrote in news:E55E257B-3D95-11D9-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> The list has been deluged with
> countless angry process oriented messages filled with vitriol and
> devoid of any content regarding the purpose of this forum, we have been
> bombarded with profanity,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Gary L. Burnore") wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> At 03:44 PM 11/23/2004, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
>>>Did you warn the proponent of comp.databases.postgresql.* that you
>>>were going to do this? Did you read any of the arguments for and
>>>against a completely separate hi
At 08:12 PM 11/23/2004, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
BTW, you indicated that one of the reasons pressing you to move was that
Google had dropped indexing services for the comp.* groups. Have they
given you an indication that they would index pgsql.*, or are we just
out of luck on that service?
Just FYI,
BTW, you indicated that one of the reasons pressing you to move was that
Google had dropped indexing services for the comp.* groups. Have they
given you an indication that they would index pgsql.*, or are we just
out of luck on that service?
Just FYI, it seems that the comp.* groups are fine o
At 07:47 PM 11/23/2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jim Seymour
> Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 5:18 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Upcoming Changes to News Server .
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jim Seymour
> Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 5:18 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Upcoming Changes to News Server ...
>
>
>
> "Gary L. Burnore"
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
Due to recent action by Google concerning the
comp.databases.postgresql.* hierarchy, we are going to make some
changes that should satisfy just about everyone ... over the next
24hrs or so, traffic *to*
comp.databases.postgresql.*
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
What I've done doesn't eliminate (or shouldn't) the desire for a comp.*
hierarchy of groups for postgresql, it just means that the what will end
up still being considered bogus groups will be able to still be access
At 06:16 PM 11/23/2004, Tom Lane wrote:
"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What I've done doesn't eliminate (or shouldn't) the desire for a comp.*
> hierarchy of groups for postgresql, it just means that the what will end
> up still being considered bogus groups will be able to still
At 05:57 PM 11/23/2004, Jim Seymour wrote:
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> Personally I think Marc should have waited awhile longer to see whether
> the news.groups process would produce a positive vote, but that's just
> my own $0.02.
That's the way *I* would've preferred to see i
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> Due to recent action by Google concerning the
> comp.databases.postgresql.* hierarchy, we are going to make some
> changes that should satisfy just about everyone ... over the next
> 24hrs or so, traffic *to*
> comp.databases.postgresql.* from the mailing lists will cease
"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What I've done doesn't eliminate (or shouldn't) the desire for a comp.*
> hierarchy of groups for postgresql, it just means that the what will end
> up still being considered bogus groups will be able to still be accessible
> by those that wish to
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Jim Seymour wrote:
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
Personally I think Marc should have waited awhile longer to see whether
the news.groups process would produce a positive vote, but that's just
my own $0.02.
That's the way *I* would've preferred to see it handled.
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
All I meant was, has core talked about it?
There has been no private discussion among core about it; it's not part
of our charter IMHO.
Personally I think Marc should have waited awhile longer to see whether
the news
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> Personally I think Marc should have waited awhile longer to see whether
> the news.groups process would produce a positive vote, but that's just
> my own $0.02.
That's the way *I* would've preferred to see it handled. Then again:
*I* was lookin
At 05:43 PM 11/23/2004, Tom Lane wrote:
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> All I meant was, has core talked about it?
There has been no private discussion among core about it; it's not part
of our charter IMHO.
Personally I think Marc should have waited awhile longer to see whether
the
At 05:28 PM 11/23/2004, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Jim Seymour wrote:
"Gary L. Burnore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
It's ok. Mysql's better anyway.
Was that absolutely necessary?
Of course not.
Yes. It shows his lack of credibility ;)
My credibility isn't the issue. That yet another news server
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> All I meant was, has core talked about it?
There has been no private discussion among core about it; it's not part
of our charter IMHO.
Personally I think Marc should have waited awhile longer to see whether
the news.groups process would produce a p
Jim Seymour wrote:
"Gary L. Burnore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
It's ok. Mysql's better anyway.
Was that absolutely necessary?
Yes. It shows his lack of credibility ;)
Jim
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
"Gary L. Burnore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> It's ok. Mysql's better anyway.
Was that absolutely necessary?
Jim
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 04:49:24PM -0500, Jim Seymour wrote:
> >Perhaps this should
> > be taken up as a whole?
> [snip]
>
> I'm not clear on what exactly "as a whole" means, but I would suggest
> that arbitrary and peremptory behaviour, perceive
Patrick B Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> Marc appears to be the only one NOT making this situation worse.
Appearances can be deceiving--particularly when you're unfamiliar with
the territory.
> Let's
> review. Si
[snip]
I'm not clear on what exactly "as a whole" means, but I would suggest
that arbitrary and peremptory behaviour, perceived or real, is not
likely to endear the pgsql community to Usenet newsmasters.
All I meant was, has core talked about it? Personally I think the fact
that Marc has been as p
On 23 Nov 2004 21:57:22 GMT, Woodchuck Bill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Gary L. Burnore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>
>> And not helping postgres since less NSP's will carry the groups and
>> the postgres message.
>>
>> It's ok. Mysql's better anyway.
>>
>
>Gary, why d
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
[I had written]
> >
> > Did you warn the proponent of comp.databases.postgresql.* that you were
> > going to do this? Did you read any of the arguments for and against a
> > completely separate hierarchy that were posted to the RFD thread in
> > new
On 23 Nov 2004 21:41:16 GMT, Woodchuck Bill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Patrick B Kelly) wrote in news:E55E257B-3D95-11D9-
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>
>> On Nov 23, 2004, at 3:59 PM, Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 15:37:56 -0400 (AST), [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> ("Marc
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 16:23:19 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Patrick B
Kelly) wrote:
>
>On Nov 23, 2004, at 3:59 PM, Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 15:37:56 -0400 (AST), [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> ("Marc G. Fournier") wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Due to recent action by Google concerning the
>>> comp.
On Nov 23, 2004, at 3:59 PM, Gary L. Burnore wrote:
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 15:37:56 -0400 (AST), [EMAIL PROTECTED]
("Marc G. Fournier") wrote:
Due to recent action by Google concerning the
comp.databases.postgresql.*
hierarchy, we are going to make some changes that should satisfy just
about everyon
At 03:44 PM 11/23/2004, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Did you warn the proponent of comp.databases.postgresql.* that you were
going to do this? Did you read any of the arguments for and against a
completely separate hierarchy that were posted to the RFD thread in
news.groups?
Interesting point. What did
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 15:37:56 -0400 (AST), [EMAIL PROTECTED]
("Marc G. Fournier") wrote:
>
>Due to recent action by Google concerning the comp.databases.postgresql.*
>hierarchy, we are going to make some changes that should satisfy just
>about everyone ... over the next 24hrs or so, traffic *to*
Did you warn the proponent of comp.databases.postgresql.* that you were
going to do this? Did you read any of the arguments for and against a
completely separate hierarchy that were posted to the RFD thread in
news.groups?
Interesting point. What did come of all the arguments? These news server
c
"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Due to recent action by Google concerning the comp.databases.postgresql.*
> hierarchy, we are going to make some changes that should satisfy just
> about everyone ... over the next 24hrs or so, traffic *to*
> comp.databases.postgresql.* from
Due to recent action by Google concerning the comp.databases.postgresql.*
hierarchy, we are going to make some changes that should satisfy just
about everyone ... over the next 24hrs or so, traffic *to*
comp.databases.postgresql.* from the mailing lists will cease and be
re-routed to pgsql.* in
61 matches
Mail list logo
