On 2023-09-25 17:21, candycanearter07 wrote:
> On 9/25/23 14:32, Wally J wrote:
>> candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote
>>
>>>> What that means is different to every aspy - but for me - that means I
>>>> don't suffer fools well - and I have a tremendous grasp of details.
>>>
>>> No wonder you got a job in Silicon Valley. Neat
>>
>> Other than Steve, and maybe nospam, I suspect nobody on this newsgroup
>> has
>> any idea how incredibly smart the people are who work in Silicon Valley.
>>
>> They put me to shame... and... by extension... the rest of you too.
>>
>> However, as candycanearter07 seems to have intimated, NOBODY in Silicon
>> Valley is normal in that NONE of them suffer fools with aplomb.
>>
>> They're all super intelligent and super difficult when people say stupid
>> things to them...
>
> I meant that the grasp of details was good for programming :(
>
> As someone who struggles with human contact and is also a bit of a
> programmer it's not super easy sometimes.

Stop imagining that Arlen pays any attention to any words except:

1. Those he writes.

2. Those he think praise him.

:-)

candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote:
> On 9/25/23 13:03, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > Yes There Is We, i.e. the opposite of the more common TINW (There Is
> > No We). I use it in cases where there *is* a group of people who
> > think/act/etc. alike.
>
> Haven't heard of either, are these common in Usenet?

TINW is quite common:

'TINW'
<https://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/TINW>
"Acronym Definition

TINW There is No We (USENET)
TINW This is Not working"

You can often find explanations for these kind of unknown terms, by
doing a "define: <keyword>" (without the quotess) search in Google, so
in this case "define: TINW".

As I said, YTIW is a derivative. It's probably not that common, so I
spread the word! :-)

candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote:
> On 9/25/23 14:06, Wally J wrote:
> > What that means is different to every aspy - but for me - that means I
> > don't suffer fools well - and I have a tremendous grasp of details.
>
> No wonder you got a job in Silicon Valley. Neat

Rather meaningless. Hundreds of thousands (millions?) of people get
jobs in Silicon Valley, me included (yes, in *that* place! :-)). Big
deal, NOT!

Anyway: "Let's Be Careful Out There!"

On 9/26/23 08:25, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> As I said, YTIW is a derivative. It's probably not that common, so I
> spread the word! :-)

Okey
--
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On 2023-09-25 21:34, Wally J wrote:
> "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote
>
>>> *Q: What does RCS do that PulseSMS (with an account) doesn't already do?*
>>>
>>> The answer to _that_ question is an adult topic worthy of discussion.
>>
>> I already answered that.
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> I'm trying to learn from...

....why people don't like you?

On 9/26/23 6:25 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote:
>> On 9/25/23 13:03, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>> > Yes There Is We, i.e. the opposite of the more common TINW (There Is
>> > No We). I use it in cases where there *is* a group of people who
>> > think/act/etc. alike.
>>
>> Haven't heard of either, are these common in Usenet?
>
> TINW is quite common:
>
> 'TINW'
> <https://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/TINW>
> "Acronym Definition
>
> TINW There is No We (USENET)
> TINW This is Not working"

<sigh> I need to get out more.

> You can often find explanations for these kind of unknown terms, by
> doing a "define: <keyword>" (without the quotess) search in Google, so
> in this case "define: TINW".
>
> As I said, YTIW is a derivative. It's probably not that common, so I
> spread the word! :-)

No google result at all. I suspect it was made up on the spot :-)

I do like PEBCAK, though.

--
Cheers, Bev
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala,
it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet." -- Anon.

On 9/26/23 11:11, The Real Bev wrote:
> No google result at all.  I suspect it was made up on the spot :-)
>
Those are the best ones!
--
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote

> Are the scripts up somewhere? That sounds pretty cool and a good way to
> learn scripting.

Please learn how to search Usenet newsgroups.

I already gave you the keyword that Marek Novotny wrote most of the early
scripts - but I didn't tell you they were posted to the Linux newsgroups.

I'd have to look them up to find them myself - so you can do it yourself.
<http://groups.google.com/g/alt.os.linux>

Run a search for "marek novotny" tied to his writing of the autoamted vpn
scripts (which is what started it as VPN is a key component of privacy).
--
RIP Marek!

Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote

> Anyway: "Let's Be Careful Out There!"

Frank Slootweg - you say the dumbest things - which is how I know you're
not well educated - so if you had a position in a Silicon Valley startup,
it wasn't one where there was any innovation.

Probably you were in IT... running NNTP servers perhaps? Dunno.

But the only time you've ever added any value to this newsgroup is when you
clued us all into the smb issues with clients on unrooted Android devices.

For that one tidbit of helpful knowledge, I commend you Frank.
I commend _anyone_ who provides technical value to this newsgroup.

But most of the time you post, Frank, you're trying to be slyly alluding to
the fact that "you can tell" as you say, "from the headers" as you slyly
grin "but you don't want to give out the secret" you claim... that you can
figure out which posts are mine (even though it's trivial to do so).

That you flag posters who are not me, Frank - is par for the course (and
again, partly how I know you don't have any education to speak of).

But what I find most amusing about you, Frank - is that you try to be sly
about it because you say you don't want to give out the data to me.

I chuckle every time you do that Frank - and you do it a lot.

Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote

>> Again insulting, you don't have anything valid to say.
>>
>> Yet when one agrees with him, I am a noteworthy individual.
>
> It is two-faced. Like many trolls.

It's not surprising that Alan Browne doesn't understand what has been
explained many times - which is I mirror his actions when I respond.

*If Alan Browne says something logically defensible, I _agree_ with him.*
*When Alan Browne claims the walled garden is a myth, I prove otherwise.*

That this is too difficult a concept for iKooks is no longer shocking.

Andy Burns wrote:

> Theo wrote:
>
>> I know theoretically carriers can do RCS not just via Google's server,
>> but is it actually feasible to do that today?
>
> I'm with O₂ and Google Messages states
> "RCS is provided by your mobile operator"

Just received a message from O2UK, they're moving from their own RCS to
Google's next week, it'll be down for 5 days during migration ...