However all the servers will still sync there messages with the original

source at Microsoft.

Therefore Microsoft who originally created the newsgroup would still be

considered the "owner"

 

 

"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message

news:slcna31031cavfbmbtodd5ha1235hq1mv8@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 13:33:30 -0700, "Bob" <Bob@somewhere.usa> wrote:

>

>>Adam he said Microsoft owns the newsgroup (this one) he didn't say

>>Microsoft

>>owns the Usenet.

>

> Still wrong. You can't own a newsgroup. Period. You, me, Microsoft,

> anyone, even our pal and everyone's favorite troll Frankie can quickly

> and easily create a new newsgroup. How to create one is all over the

> web.

>

> Once created UNLESS restricted access meaning they are only accessible

> from ONE news server then once created ALL newsgroups part of Usenet

> can be and are carried by any news service provider or ISP that wants

> to carry them. Therefore they become part of the public domain, nobody

> owns or controls them.

>

> If you want some history, here it is...

>

> Once upon a time Microsoft REQUIRED that anyone wishing to access any

> of their now more than 2,000+ groups had to access them from one of

> their news servers. Then what you said would be valid. No more.

>

> Several years ago, I forget exactly when or who, but one of the major

> Usenet backbone providers STOLE Microsoft's feed. If or not Microsoft

> liked that I don't know or care. What happened very quickly was once

> one provider picked up the Microsoft feed every news server provider

> that peered with this original provider then had the option of

> carrying all or some of the Microsoft groups just like they have the

> option to pick and choose what other newsgroups they carry.

>

> Many did elect to carry all the Microsoft newsgroups as a public

> service to their customers and Microsoft while they may not have liked

> their feed getting "stolen" out from under them didn't do anything

> about it and you see what we have now. Anybody, anywhere on the planet

> can access THIS and any other Microsoft newsgroup IF whoever they get

> their Usenet feed from provides it.

>

> Clearly you can now see the ownership point has no meaning. At least I

> can dream people are intelligent enough to have followed along.

>

In article <e4VhEeK0HHA.1164@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>, Spanky deMonkey

wrote:

> You are an idiot pure and simple

 

And that is not insulting? How does it reduce or stop noise?

It is insulting. I meant to insult him because he is an IDIOT. It doesn't

reduce or stop noise. Wasn't meant to. I am calling him an idiot because

he posts like an idiot.

 

Any questions?

 

 

"huwyngr" <Hugh_Wyn_Griffith@simpilot.net> wrote in message

news:VA.000004b8.0023cd48@unspam.tampabay.rr.com...

> In article <e4VhEeK0HHA.1164@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>, Spanky deMonkey

> wrote:

>

>> You are an idiot pure and simple

>

> And that is not insulting? How does it reduce or stop noise?

>

>

Adam Albright wrote:

> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 23:42:14 +0200, "P. Di Stolfo"

> wrote:

>

>> Hello,

>> thank you for clearing this up.

>>

>>> [...] At least I

>>> can dream people are intelligent enough to have followed along.

>> This sounds a little offensive, if I may say.

>

> Doesn't ANYBODY have a sense of humor?

>

>

 

Huh?

On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 18:49:57 -0700, "Bob" <Bob@somewhere.usa> wrote:

>However all the servers will still sync there messages with the original

>source at Microsoft.

>Therefore Microsoft who originally created the newsgroup would still be

>considered the "owner"

 

Give it up with you guys. Were talking a newsgroup, it isn't property,

hell man it doesn't even physically exist. I NEVER saw a bigger bunch

of babies that even when proven wrong beyond all doubt instead of

admitting you were wrong will go on and on pretending they weren't.

What a bunch of losers!

>

>

>"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message

>news:slcna31031cavfbmbtodd5ha1235hq1mv8@4ax.com...

>> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 13:33:30 -0700, "Bob" <Bob@somewhere.usa> wrote:

>>

>>>Adam he said Microsoft owns the newsgroup (this one) he didn't say

>>>Microsoft

>>>owns the Usenet.

>>

>> Still wrong. You can't own a newsgroup. Period. You, me, Microsoft,

>> anyone, even our pal and everyone's favorite troll Frankie can quickly

>> and easily create a new newsgroup. How to create one is all over the

>> web.

>>

>> Once created UNLESS restricted access meaning they are only accessible

>> from ONE news server then once created ALL newsgroups part of Usenet

>> can be and are carried by any news service provider or ISP that wants

>> to carry them. Therefore they become part of the public domain, nobody

>> owns or controls them.

>>

>> If you want some history, here it is...

>>

>> Once upon a time Microsoft REQUIRED that anyone wishing to access any

>> of their now more than 2,000+ groups had to access them from one of

>> their news servers. Then what you said would be valid. No more.

>>

>> Several years ago, I forget exactly when or who, but one of the major

>> Usenet backbone providers STOLE Microsoft's feed. If or not Microsoft

>> liked that I don't know or care. What happened very quickly was once

>> one provider picked up the Microsoft feed every news server provider

>> that peered with this original provider then had the option of

>> carrying all or some of the Microsoft groups just like they have the

>> option to pick and choose what other newsgroups they carry.

>>

>> Many did elect to carry all the Microsoft newsgroups as a public

>> service to their customers and Microsoft while they may not have liked

>> their feed getting "stolen" out from under them didn't do anything

>> about it and you see what we have now. Anybody, anywhere on the planet

>> can access THIS and any other Microsoft newsgroup IF whoever they get

>> their Usenet feed from provides it.

>>

>> Clearly you can now see the ownership point has no meaning. At least I

>> can dream people are intelligent enough to have followed along.

>>

Well I guess you would rather just stomp you feet and rant rather then

explain you point.

Time to add you to my kill file. Maybe if you would read sometime you might

learn something.

 

"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message

news:tt0oa3dg8qlpoo3lcletm29g3c9nr6ckp5@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 18:49:57 -0700, "Bob" <Bob@somewhere.usa> wrote:

>

>>However all the servers will still sync there messages with the original

>>source at Microsoft.

>>Therefore Microsoft who originally created the newsgroup would still be

>>considered the "owner"

>

> Give it up with you guys. Were talking a newsgroup, it isn't property,

> hell man it doesn't even physically exist. I NEVER saw a bigger bunch

> of babies that even when proven wrong beyond all doubt instead of

> admitting you were wrong will go on and on pretending they weren't.

> What a bunch of losers!

>>

>>

>>"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message

>>news:slcna31031cavfbmbtodd5ha1235hq1mv8@4ax.com...

>>> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 13:33:30 -0700, "Bob" <Bob@somewhere.usa> wrote:

>>>

>>>>Adam he said Microsoft owns the newsgroup (this one) he didn't say

>>>>Microsoft

>>>>owns the Usenet.

>>>

>>> Still wrong. You can't own a newsgroup. Period. You, me, Microsoft,

>>> anyone, even our pal and everyone's favorite troll Frankie can quickly

>>> and easily create a new newsgroup. How to create one is all over the

>>> web.

>>>

>>> Once created UNLESS restricted access meaning they are only accessible

>>> from ONE news server then once created ALL newsgroups part of Usenet

>>> can be and are carried by any news service provider or ISP that wants

>>> to carry them. Therefore they become part of the public domain, nobody

>>> owns or controls them.

>>>

>>> If you want some history, here it is...

>>>

>>> Once upon a time Microsoft REQUIRED that anyone wishing to access any

>>> of their now more than 2,000+ groups had to access them from one of

>>> their news servers. Then what you said would be valid. No more.

>>>

>>> Several years ago, I forget exactly when or who, but one of the major

>>> Usenet backbone providers STOLE Microsoft's feed. If or not Microsoft

>>> liked that I don't know or care. What happened very quickly was once

>>> one provider picked up the Microsoft feed every news server provider

>>> that peered with this original provider then had the option of

>>> carrying all or some of the Microsoft groups just like they have the

>>> option to pick and choose what other newsgroups they carry.

>>>

>>> Many did elect to carry all the Microsoft newsgroups as a public

>>> service to their customers and Microsoft while they may not have liked

>>> their feed getting "stolen" out from under them didn't do anything

>>> about it and you see what we have now. Anybody, anywhere on the planet

>>> can access THIS and any other Microsoft newsgroup IF whoever they get

>>> their Usenet feed from provides it.

>>>

>>> Clearly you can now see the ownership point has no meaning. At least I

>>> can dream people are intelligent enough to have followed along.

>>>

>

On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 20:33:04 -0700, "Bob" <Bob@somewhere.usa> wrote:

>Well I guess you would rather just stomp you feet and rant rather then

>explain you point.

 

If you still can't understand what I explained what does that suggest

about your intelligence?

>Time to add you to my kill file. Maybe if you would read sometime you might

>learn something.

 

Bozos that need to announce they put people in their kill file are the

lamest of all posters and confirm they are really operating at the

mental capacity of a ten year old. PLEASE put me in your kill file, I

couldn't care less. One less dummy I won't have to correct when he

makes factual errors.

Its not a many to many type of system its a many to one. All servers tied

into the Microsoft news feed sync there messages back to the original news

servers. Then all other servers pick up the new messages from the Microsoft

news feed.

 

If it was a many to many system each server hosting the feed would have to

sync new messages to all other servers hosting the feed. It just doesn't

work that way. This is what I was trying to explain to Adam before he went

off in a huff.

 

"GO" <aa533@remove.this.chebucto.ns.ca> wrote in message

news:uiL6rRZ0HHA.5980@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> He did explain his point, and I understood it at least. If these groups

> were only accessible via MS's own servers then yes, MS would own them.

> Now

> that it's part of Usenet, it is part of the Usenet network where there is

> no

> central server or owner. The messages will get synched with all servers

> hosting that particular group. MS can moderate the messages that appear

> on

> it's servers but it has no bearing on other Usenet servers that carry the

> MS

> groups.

>

>

>

Refreshing to see someone who understands how it works.

 

 

"Gary" <Gary@NoSpam.california.usa> wrote in message

news:utYG3XZ0HHA.3940@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> Its not a many to many type of system its a many to one. All servers tied

> into the Microsoft news feed sync there messages back to the original news

> servers. Then all other servers pick up the new messages from the

> Microsoft news feed.

>

> If it was a many to many system each server hosting the feed would have to

> sync new messages to all other servers hosting the feed. It just doesn't

> work that way. This is what I was trying to explain to Adam before he went

> off in a huff.

>

> "GO" <aa533@remove.this.chebucto.ns.ca> wrote in message

> news:uiL6rRZ0HHA.5980@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>> He did explain his point, and I understood it at least. If these groups

>> were only accessible via MS's own servers then yes, MS would own them.

>> Now

>> that it's part of Usenet, it is part of the Usenet network where there is

>> no

>> central server or owner. The messages will get synched with all servers

>> hosting that particular group. MS can moderate the messages that appear

>> on

>> it's servers but it has no bearing on other Usenet servers that carry the

>> MS

>> groups.

>>

>>

>>

>

>

In article <A28913B3-4993-4A48-B7E9-BE3E4BD087ED@microsoft.com>,

Bob@somewhere.usa says...

>

> Refreshing to see someone who understands how it works.

 

Except that's not how it really works. Each Usenet server has partners

that it replicates with, it doesn't matter if the MS Usenet servers

exist, the messages will replicate with the peers and the peers will

replicate with their other peers, so MS could stop being a Usenet member

and everyone could still use the groups, just not from the MS addresses.

 

--

 

Leythos

- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.

- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a

drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"

spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 21:07:21 -0700, "Gary"

<Gary@NoSpam.california.usa> wrote:

>Its not a many to many type of system its a many to one. All servers tied

>into the Microsoft news feed sync there messages back to the original news

>servers. Then all other servers pick up the new messages from the Microsoft

>news feed.

>

>If it was a many to many system each server hosting the feed would have to

>sync new messages to all other servers hosting the feed. It just doesn't

>work that way. This is what I was trying to explain to Adam before he went

>off in a huff.

 

Speaking of huffs when are you going to admit you were dead wrong

about NTSC color space? Obviously you blew your top on that topic.

 

For those WILLING to learn how Usenet works:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_server

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peering

 

Also see news feed, upstream and downstream. To suggest all of the

several thousand news servers that carry this and other Microsoft

groups tie in to Microsoft news servers directly is lunacy. It only

takes ONE news server to pick up the feed. I already explained this is

how originally Microsoft's feed was stolen by a major backbone. Once

picked up new posts are exchanged with other intra connected news

servers just like they do to pick up other messages in non Microsoft

newsgroups. It's similar to a telephone network. In fact Usenet like

the Internet travels over the major telephone networks like AT&T and

Sprint.

> "Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message

> news:tt0oa3dg8qlpoo3lcletm29g3c9nr6ckp5@4ax.com...

>> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 18:49:57 -0700, "Bob" <Bob@somewhere.usa> wrote:

>>

>>> However all the servers will still sync there messages with the

>>> original source at Microsoft.

>>> Therefore Microsoft who originally created the newsgroup would

>>> still be considered the "owner"

>>

>> Give it up with you guys. Were talking a newsgroup, it isn't

>> property, hell man it doesn't even physically exist. I NEVER saw a

>> bigger bunch of babies that even when proven wrong beyond all doubt

>> instead of admitting you were wrong will go on and on pretending

>> they weren't. What a bunch of losers!

>>>

Bob wrote:

> Well I guess you would rather just stomp you feet and rant rather then

> explain you point.

> Time to add you to my kill file. Maybe if you would read sometime you

> might learn something.

>

 

He did explain his point, and I understood it at least. If these groups

were only accessible via MS's own servers then yes, MS would own them. Now

that it's part of Usenet, it is part of the Usenet network where there is no

central server or owner. The messages will get synched with all servers

hosting that particular group. MS can moderate the messages that appear on

it's servers but it has no bearing on other Usenet servers that carry the MS

groups.

"Gary" <Gary@NoSpam.california.usa> wrote in

news:utYG3XZ0HHA.3940@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl:

> Its not a many to many type of system its a many to one. All servers

> tied into the Microsoft news feed sync there messages back to the

> original news servers. Then all other servers pick up the new messages

> from the Microsoft news feed.

>

> If it was a many to many system each server hosting the feed would

> have to sync new messages to all other servers hosting the feed. It

> just doesn't work that way. This is what I was trying to explain to

> Adam before he went off in a huff.

>

 

But yes, that is *EXACTLY* how it works. It is a many-to-many system. A

peer-to-peer system.

 

I'll post a message to this group through Giganews, and after posting,

their servers will push it to other servers, and those will do the same,

and so on, until it propagates to as many other independant servers as it

can.

 

Once a newsgroup is created and hosted by thousands of usenet servers on

the internet, it can be carried on regardless of who added it on. MS can be

completed gone and their servers offline, but these MS newsgroups could

just live on years after that anyway.

That's never been my understanding of how Usenet works. Usenet works much

like a peer to peer (P2P) network where there is no central server. When

new messages come in it gets sent to neighboring servers.

 

Gary wrote:

> Its not a many to many type of system its a many to one. All servers

> tied into the Microsoft news feed sync there messages back to the

> original news servers. Then all other servers pick up the new

> messages from the Microsoft news feed.

>

> If it was a many to many system each server hosting the feed would

> have to sync new messages to all other servers hosting the feed. It

> just doesn't work that way. This is what I was trying to explain to

> Adam before he went off in a huff.

>

> "GO" <aa533@remove.this.chebucto.ns.ca> wrote in message

> news:uiL6rRZ0HHA.5980@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>> He did explain his point, and I understood it at least. If these

>> groups were only accessible via MS's own servers then yes, MS would

>> own them. Now

>> that it's part of Usenet, it is part of the Usenet network where

>> there is no

>> central server or owner. The messages will get synched with all

>> servers hosting that particular group. MS can moderate the messages

>> that appear on

>> it's servers but it has no bearing on other Usenet servers that

>> carry the MS

>> groups.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet

or more specifically:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet#Technical_details

 

GO wrote:

> That's never been my understanding of how Usenet works. Usenet works

> much like a peer to peer (P2P) network where there is no central

> server. When new messages come in it gets sent to neighboring

> servers.

>

> Gary wrote:

>> Its not a many to many type of system its a many to one. All servers

>> tied into the Microsoft news feed sync there messages back to the

>> original news servers. Then all other servers pick up the new

>> messages from the Microsoft news feed.

>>

>> If it was a many to many system each server hosting the feed would

>> have to sync new messages to all other servers hosting the feed. It

>> just doesn't work that way. This is what I was trying to explain to

>> Adam before he went off in a huff.

>>

>> "GO" <aa533@remove.this.chebucto.ns.ca> wrote in message

>> news:uiL6rRZ0HHA.5980@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>>> He did explain his point, and I understood it at least. If these

>>> groups were only accessible via MS's own servers then yes, MS would

>>> own them. Now

>>> that it's part of Usenet, it is part of the Usenet network where

>>> there is no

>>> central server or owner. The messages will get synched with all

>>> servers hosting that particular group. MS can moderate the messages

>>> that appear on

>>> it's servers but it has no bearing on other Usenet servers that

>>> carry the MS

>>> groups.

On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 15:37:22 -0700, XS11E <xs11e@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:

>"P. Di Stolfo" wrote:

>

>> as long as msnews.microsoft.com belongs to Microsoft, I think they

>> own the newsgroups.

>

>But they don't own the newsgroups, at least not the public ones.

>Microsoft allows some or all of the newsgroups on the public servers to

>propagate throughout Usenet so you might find this group on many news

>servers.

You just don't understand how news groups work. Go to usenet.com, and read up on it.

If M$ Removes ANY of the Microsoft.public groups, they disappear EVERYWHERE.

A NG is nothing but a registered name on USENET that builds a database of messages under each specific news group name.

 

News Servers [giga news, toast.net, bellsouth.com] etc.. all have their OWN servers. The message starts at one central hub. Like this message from me is starting from Bellsouth's news servers. Eventually it'll filter around the world to any news server that carries this news group.

--

more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html

"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message

news:5b5oa39r6b5cab96lk0evhu0bkp9jm8elr@4ax.com...

> Speaking of huffs when are you going to admit you were dead wrong

> about NTSC color space? Obviously you blew your top on that topic.

 

Didn't read my last post on that subject did you. I reposted it for you.

I reposted my last reply to you on this subject. Have you seen the light

yet.

 

 

 

"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message

news:67qka3d5var54ob0rp1dtgr2aqgre6s8bm@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 14:14:20 -0700, "Gary" <Gary@somewhere.usa> wrote:

>

>>Thank you for your intelligent helpful message.

>>What a jerk.

>

> Oh I see, you get to call anybody any name you like, but you yourself

> aren't a jerk. Still smarting from the spanking I gave you this

> morning on color space and how NTSC color space doesn't show black as

> 0 or white as 255? Seems like you hold a grudge. <snicker>

>

On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 10:14:12 -0700, "Gary"

<Gary@NoSpam.california.usa> wrote:

>

>"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message

>news:5b5oa39r6b5cab96lk0evhu0bkp9jm8elr@4ax.com...

>> Speaking of huffs when are you going to admit you were dead wrong

>> about NTSC color space? Obviously you blew your top on that topic.

>

>Didn't read my last post on that subject did you. I reposted it for you.

 

Obviously you didn't read my last post...yet.

 

ROTFLMAO!

On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 13:03:41 -0700, "Gary"

<Gary@NoSpam.california.usa> wrote:

>I reposted my last reply to you on this subject. Have you seen the light

>yet.

 

You proved yourself to be an ill temper buffoon, but I already knew.

Typical of someone who doesn't know how a display works.

 

Adam enjoys making a fool out of himself.

 

"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message

news:75vpa3lerm68q95u4luaaaqj27psl1rpnf@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 10:14:12 -0700, "Gary"

> <Gary@NoSpam.california.usa> wrote:

>

>>

>>"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message

>>news:5b5oa39r6b5cab96lk0evhu0bkp9jm8elr@4ax.com...

>>> Speaking of huffs when are you going to admit you were dead wrong

>>> about NTSC color space? Obviously you blew your top on that topic.

>>

>>Didn't read my last post on that subject did you. I reposted it for you.

>

> Obviously you didn't read my last post...yet.

>

> ROTFLMAO!

>

>

And you have proven time and again what a arrogant fool you are.

 

"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message

news:devpa397001b2id90p4kiqqdug8h63cckc@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 13:03:41 -0700, "Gary"

> <Gary@NoSpam.california.usa> wrote:

>

>>I reposted my last reply to you on this subject. Have you seen the light

>>yet.

>

> You proved yourself to be an ill temper buffoon, but I already knew.

>

On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 14:05:08 -0700, "Gary"

<Gary@NoSpam.california.usa> wrote:

>Typical of someone who doesn't know how a display works.

 

Yet another fallacy. Damn is Gary desperate to try to save face.

>

>Adam enjoys making a fool out of himself.

 

Seems Adam made a fool out of Gary. Just check the facts. I just

supplied the rope, you hung yourself.

 

Want to play again? Pick another topic you're "expert" on.

 

ROTFLMAO!

On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 14:22:08 -0700, "Gary"

<Gary@NoSpam.california.usa> wrote:

>And you have proven time and again what a arrogant fool you are.

 

The FACTS would suggest otherwise. When you going to admit you were

wrong about news servers too?

Yes I was wrong about USENET.

 

And you were wrong about the only value for black in RGB is 0,0,0. See the

light yet?

 

"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message

news:0v3qa35jegdregm6ulns5863kbdbf83nq0@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 14:22:08 -0700, "Gary"

> <Gary@NoSpam.california.usa> wrote:

>

>>And you have proven time and again what a arrogant fool you are.

>

> The FACTS would suggest otherwise. When you going to admit you were

> wrong about news servers too?

>