1) His theory did not become popular based on any intrinsic value. It
became popular due to propagandistic methods.

2) His theory did not become popular based on any intrinsic value. It
became popular because of propagandistic methods.

3) His theory did not become popular based on any intrinsic value. It
became popular through propagandistic methods.

4) His theory did not become popular based on any intrinsic value. It
became popular by propagandistic methods.

5) His theory did not become popular based on any intrinsic value. It
became popular by using propagandistic methods.

Which are grammatical and meaningful?
Which are idiomatic?

I don't think 'by using' works here. It seems as if his theory used
propagandistic methods.

I like '3'. I think '1' and '2' are OKish.

Gratefully,
Navi

On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 9:05:05 PM UTC-4, arthurvv vart wrote:

> 1) His theory did not become popular based on any intrinsic value. It
> became popular due to propagandistic methods.
>
> 2) His theory did not become popular based on any intrinsic value. It
> became popular because of propagandistic methods.
>
> 3) His theory did not become popular based on any intrinsic value. It
> became popular through propagandistic methods.
>
> 4) His theory did not become popular based on any intrinsic value. It
> became popular by propagandistic methods.
>
> 5) His theory did not become popular based on any intrinsic value. It
> became popular by using propagandistic methods.
>
> Which are grammatical and meaningful?
> Which are idiomatic?

None is meaningful, regardless of grammaticality.

> I don't think 'by using' works here. It seems as if his theory used
> propagandistic methods.
>
> I like '3'. I think '1' and '2' are OKish.

Talking about Lysenko or Marr?

On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 6:57:38 AM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 9:05:05 PM UTC-4, arthurvv vart wrote:
>
> > 1) His theory did not become popular based on any intrinsic value. It
> > became popular due to propagandistic methods.
> >
> > 2) His theory did not become popular based on any intrinsic value. It
> > became popular because of propagandistic methods.
> >
> > 3) His theory did not become popular based on any intrinsic value. It
> > became popular through propagandistic methods.
> >
> > 4) His theory did not become popular based on any intrinsic value. It
> > became popular by propagandistic methods.
> >
> > 5) His theory did not become popular based on any intrinsic value. It
> > became popular by using propagandistic methods.
> >
> > Which are grammatical and meaningful?
> > Which are idiomatic?
> None is meaningful, regardless of grammaticality.
> > I don't think 'by using' works here. It seems as if his theory used
> > propagandistic methods.
> >
> > I like '3'. I think '1' and '2' are OKish.
> Talking about Lysenko or Marr?

Thank you very much, Peter,

I don't know Marr.

I think Lysenko's theory's popularity owed a lot to certain types of
arm-twisting, as well as propagandistic methods. But I think that
is still a very good example.

I'll take Lysenko.

What is Marr's first name? (Then I can look him up).

Respectfully,
Navi

On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 4:11:41 PM UTC-4, arthurvv vart wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 6:57:38 AM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 9:05:05 PM UTC-4, arthurvv vart wrote:

> > > 1) His theory did not become popular based on any intrinsic value. It
> > > became popular due to propagandistic methods.
> > >
> > > 2) His theory did not become popular based on any intrinsic value. It
> > > became popular because of propagandistic methods.
> > >
> > > 3) His theory did not become popular based on any intrinsic value. It
> > > became popular through propagandistic methods.
> > >
> > > 4) His theory did not become popular based on any intrinsic value. It
> > > became popular by propagandistic methods.
> > >
> > > 5) His theory did not become popular based on any intrinsic value. It
> > > became popular by using propagandistic methods.
> > >
> > > Which are grammatical and meaningful?
> > > Which are idiomatic?
> > None is meaningful, regardless of grammaticality.
> > > I don't think 'by using' works here. It seems as if his theory used
> > > propagandistic methods.
> > > I like '3'. I think '1' and '2' are OKish.
> > Talking about Lysenko or Marr?
>
> Thank you very much, Peter,
>
> I don't know Marr.

N. Ya. Marr. He had his own brand of linguistics (the Original Syllables
were Sal, Ber, Rosh, Yon), and Stalin "wrote" his 1951 pamphlet, "Marxism
in Linguistics," to refute it. (Don't ask me how.) The first page asks the
question "Is language the superstructure on the base?" and the answer,
for some reason, is "No."

> I think Lysenko's theory's popularity owed a lot to certain types of
> arm-twisting, as well as propagandistic methods. But I think that
> is still a very good example.
>
> I'll take Lysenko.
>
> What is Marr's first name? (Then I can look him up).

Probably Nicolai, no?

Thank you very much, Peter,

I had never heard of him.

Here he is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Marr

The question whether language is part of the superstructure
or the base must be a real conundrum for Marxists.

It can't be part of the base, can it? And if it is part of the superstructure
why doesn't it change when the base changes.

I guess they'd say it is neither part of the superstructure nor part of the
base.

Maybe if one adopts the Marxist viewpoint, one might say that the
question is ill-formulated or something.

Anyway, thanks.

On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 8:36:17 PM UTC-4, arthurvv vart wrote:
> Thank you very much, Peter,
> I had never heard of him.
>
> Here he is:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Marr
>
> The question whether language is part of the superstructure
> or the base must be a real conundrum for Marxists.
>
> It can't be part of the base, can it? And if it is part of the superstructure
> why doesn't it change when the base changes.
>
> I guess they'd say it is neither part of the superstructure nor part of the
> base.
>
> Maybe if one adopts the Marxist viewpoint, one might say that the
> question is ill-formulated or something.
>
> Anyway, thanks.

This, in fact, is the original thread that AC-B diverged from.

On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 6:29:54 AM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 8:36:17 PM UTC-4, arthurvv vart wrote:
> > Thank you very much, Peter,
> > I had never heard of him.
> >
> > Here he is:
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Marr
> >
> > The question whether language is part of the superstructure
> > or the base must be a real conundrum for Marxists.
> >
> > It can't be part of the base, can it? And if it is part of the superstructure
> > why doesn't it change when the base changes.
> >
> > I guess they'd say it is neither part of the superstructure nor part of the
> > base.
> >
> > Maybe if one adopts the Marxist viewpoint, one might say that the
> > question is ill-formulated or something.
> >
> > Anyway, thanks.
> This, in fact, is the original thread that AC-B diverged from.

Sorry, Peter,

I don't understand what you mean.

Respectfully,
Navi

On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 4:05:17 PM UTC-4, arthurvv vart wrote:
> On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 6:29:54 AM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 8:36:17 PM UTC-4, arthurvv vart wrote:

> > > Thank you very much, Peter,
> > > I had never heard of him.
> > > Here he is:
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Marr
> > > The question whether language is part of the superstructure
> > > or the base must be a real conundrum for Marxists.
> > > It can't be part of the base, can it? And if it is part of the superstructure
> > > why doesn't it change when the base changes.
> > > I guess they'd say it is neither part of the superstructure nor part of the
> > > base.
> > > Maybe if one adopts the Marxist viewpoint, one might say that the
> > > question is ill-formulated or something.
> > > Anyway, thanks.
> > This, in fact, is the original thread that AC-B diverged from.
>
> Sorry, Peter,
>
> I don't understand what you mean.

It refers to the other thread by the same name but beginning with
"Re:" that Athel started. Some there claim that you are at the head
of it and this one doesn't exist.

On 09-Jun-23 21:05, arthurvv vart wrote:
> On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 6:29:54 AM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 8:36:17 PM UTC-4, arthurvv vart wrote:
>>> Thank you very much, Peter,
>>> I had never heard of him.
>>>
>>> Here he is:
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Marr
>>>
>>> The question whether language is part of the superstructure
>>> or the base must be a real conundrum for Marxists.
>>>
>>> It can't be part of the base, can it? And if it is part of the superstructure
>>> why doesn't it change when the base changes.
>>>
>>> I guess they'd say it is neither part of the superstructure nor part of the
>>> base.
>>>
>>> Maybe if one adopts the Marxist viewpoint, one might say that the
>>> question is ill-formulated or something.
>>>
>>> Anyway, thanks.
>> This, in fact, is the original thread that AC-B diverged from.
>
> Sorry, Peter,
>
> I don't understand what you mean.

Peter uses Google Groups.
That sometimes does odd things to posts and threads.
Rather than see it as a defect in Google Groups, Peter prefers to accuse
others (especially AC-B) of deliberate sabotage.

--
Sam Plusnet

On 09/06/23 23:29, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 8:36:17 PM UTC-4, arthurvv vart wrote:
>> Thank you very much, Peter, I had never heard of him.
>>
>> Here he is:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Marr
>>
>> The question whether language is part of the superstructure or the
>> base must be a real conundrum for Marxists.
>>
>> It can't be part of the base, can it? And if it is part of the
>> superstructure why doesn't it change when the base changes.
>>
>> I guess they'd say it is neither part of the superstructure nor
>> part of the base.
>>
>> Maybe if one adopts the Marxist viewpoint, one might say that the
>> question is ill-formulated or something.
>>
>> Anyway, thanks.
>
> This, in fact, is the original thread that AC-B diverged from.

This confirms what I guessed in the other thread with the same Subject.
Navi has posted the same article twice, creating two threads.

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 6:25:31 AM UTC-6, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 09/06/23 23:29, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 8:36:17 PM UTC-4, arthurvv vart wrote:
> >> Thank you very much, Peter, I had never heard of him.
> >>
> >> Here he is:
> >>
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Marr
> >>
> >> The question whether language is part of the superstructure or the
> >> base must be a real conundrum for Marxists.
> >>
> >> It can't be part of the base, can it? And if it is part of the
> >> superstructure why doesn't it change when the base changes.
> >>
> >> I guess they'd say it is neither part of the superstructure nor
> >> part of the base.
> >>
> >> Maybe if one adopts the Marxist viewpoint, one might say that the
> >> question is ill-formulated or something.
> >>
> >> Anyway, thanks.
> >
> > This, in fact, is the original thread that AC-B diverged from.

> This confirms what I guessed in the other thread with the same Subject.
> Navi has posted the same article twice, creating two threads.

There's only one post on the subject from him at GG. For some reason
Athel's response shows up as the start of a new thread.

--
Jerry Friedman

On 10/06/23 22:45, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 6:25:31 AM UTC-6, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> On 09/06/23 23:29, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 8:36:17 PM UTC-4, arthurvv vart
>>> wrote:
>>>> Thank you very much, Peter, I had never heard of him.
>>>>
>>>> Here he is:
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Marr
>>>>
>>>> The question whether language is part of the superstructure or
>>>> the base must be a real conundrum for Marxists.
>>>>
>>>> It can't be part of the base, can it? And if it is part of the
>>>> superstructure why doesn't it change when the base changes.
>>>>
>>>> I guess they'd say it is neither part of the superstructure
>>>> nor part of the base.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe if one adopts the Marxist viewpoint, one might say that
>>>> the question is ill-formulated or something.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, thanks.
>>>
>>> This, in fact, is the original thread that AC-B diverged from.
>
>> This confirms what I guessed in the other thread with the same
>> Subject. Navi has posted the same article twice, creating two
>> threads.
>
> There's only one post on the subject from him at GG. For some
> reason Athel's response shows up as the start of a new thread.

Perhaps GG has a way of detecting duplicate posts. (There are
surprisingly many of them, probably created when people think their
first attempt to send didn't succeed.) But of course that will only
cause confusion when one person has responded to one of the copies and
someone else has responded to the other. At that point two threads
exist, so confusion is created when GG deletes the head of one of the
threads.

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 5:42:53 PM UTC-4, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> On 09-Jun-23 21:05, arthurvv vart wrote:
> > On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 6:29:54 AM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 8:36:17 PM UTC-4, arthurvv vart wrote:

> >>> Thank you very much, Peter,
> >>> I had never heard of him.
> >>> Here he is:
> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Marr
> >>> The question whether language is part of the superstructure
> >>> or the base must be a real conundrum for Marxists.
> >>> It can't be part of the base, can it? And if it is part of the superstructure
> >>> why doesn't it change when the base changes.
> >>> I guess they'd say it is neither part of the superstructure nor part of the
> >>> base.
> >>> Maybe if one adopts the Marxist viewpoint, one might say that the
> >>> question is ill-formulated or something.
> >>> Anyway, thanks.
> >> This, in fact, is the original thread that AC-B diverged from.
> > Sorry, Peter,
> > I don't understand what you mean.
>
> Peter uses Google Groups.
> That sometimes does odd things to posts and threads.

Do you suppose that was the Hen's excuse?
Can you explain why it hasn't happened elsethread?

> Rather than see it as a defect in Google Groups, Peter prefers to accuse
> others (especially AC-B) of deliberate sabotage.

Do you think starting a new thread counts as sabotage? A good
thing you've nothing to do with MI6.

On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 9:11:34 AM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 10/06/23 22:45, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 6:25:31 AM UTC-6, Peter Moylan wrote:
> >> On 09/06/23 23:29, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 8:36:17 PM UTC-4, arthurvv vart
> >>> wrote:

> >>>> Thank you very much, Peter, I had never heard of him.
> >>>> Here he is:
> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Marr
> >>>> The question whether language is part of the superstructure or
> >>>> the base must be a real conundrum for Marxists.
> >>>> It can't be part of the base, can it? And if it is part of the
> >>>> superstructure why doesn't it change when the base changes.
> >>>> I guess they'd say it is neither part of the superstructure
> >>>> nor part of the base.
> >>>> Maybe if one adopts the Marxist viewpoint, one might say that
> >>>> the question is ill-formulated or something.
> >>>> Anyway, thanks.
> >>> This, in fact, is the original thread that AC-B diverged from.
> >> This confirms what I guessed in the other thread with the same
> >> Subject. Navi has posted the same article twice, creating two
> >> threads.
> > There's only one post on the subject from him at GG. For some
> > reason Athel's response shows up as the start of a new thread.
>
> Perhaps GG has a way of detecting duplicate posts. (There are
> surprisingly many of them, probably created when people think their
> first attempt to send didn't succeed.) But of course that will only
> cause confusion when one person has responded to one of the copies and
> someone else has responded to the other. At that point two threads
> exist, so confusion is created when GG deletes the head of one of the
> threads.

Instead of hurling accusations, why don't you ask arthur-Navi whether
he started two threads with the same name, and why he hasn't responded
to Athel's or Hibou's comments?

If GG "has a way of detecting duplicate posts," why do I see, once every
two or three weeks, the set of lettered "Monkey, Tree, ..." posts that seem
to have something to do with Stonehenge? Of course each iteration might
have a character changed somewhere, but I haven't read any version of
any of them.

On 2023-06-10 07:11, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 10/06/23 22:45, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>> On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 6:25:31 AM UTC-6, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>> On 09/06/23 23:29, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 8:36:17 PM UTC-4, arthurvv vart
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Thank you very much, Peter, I had never heard of him.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here he is:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Marr
>>>>>
>>>>> The question whether language is part of the superstructure or
>>>>> the base must be a real conundrum for Marxists.
>>>>>
>>>>> It can't be part of the base, can it? And if it is part of the
>>>>> superstructure why doesn't it change when the base changes.
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess they'd say it is neither part of the superstructure
>>>>> nor part of the base.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe if one adopts the Marxist viewpoint, one might say that
>>>>> the question is ill-formulated or something.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, thanks.
>>>>
>>>> This, in fact, is the original thread that AC-B diverged from.
>>
>>> This confirms what I guessed in the other thread with the same
>>> Subject. Navi has posted the same article twice, creating two
>>> threads.
>>
>> There's only one post on the subject from him at GG.  For some
>> reason Athel's response shows up as the start of a new thread.
>
> Perhaps GG has a way of detecting duplicate posts. (There are
> surprisingly many of them, probably created when people think their
> first attempt to send didn't succeed.) But of course that will only
> cause confusion when one person has responded to one of the copies and
> someone else has responded to the other. At that point two threads
> exist, so confusion is created when GG deletes the head of one of the
> threads.

When I am responding to a post, Thunderbird will sometimes sit there
with the reply looking as if it did not get sent. It usually sends it
again if I press send again.

Because it does this, I have a pinned URL in Firefox pointing to aue, so
I can quickly look to see if it actually got posted. If it has, I just
close the Thunderbird window and discard the changes.

--
Why don't they make the whole plane out of that black box stuff.
~ Steven Wright

On Saturday, Peter T. Daniels pointed out that ...
> On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 9:11:34 AM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> On 10/06/23 22:45, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>>> On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 6:25:31 AM UTC-6, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>>> On 09/06/23 23:29, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 8:36:17 PM UTC-4, arthurvv vart
>>>>> wrote:
>
>>>>>> Thank you very much, Peter, I had never heard of him.
>>>>>> Here he is:
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Marr
>>>>>> The question whether language is part of the superstructure or
>>>>>> the base must be a real conundrum for Marxists.
>>>>>> It can't be part of the base, can it? And if it is part of the
>>>>>> superstructure why doesn't it change when the base changes.
>>>>>> I guess they'd say it is neither part of the superstructure
>>>>>> nor part of the base.
>>>>>> Maybe if one adopts the Marxist viewpoint, one might say that
>>>>>> the question is ill-formulated or something.
>>>>>> Anyway, thanks.
>>>>> This, in fact, is the original thread that AC-B diverged from.
>>>> This confirms what I guessed in the other thread with the same
>>>> Subject. Navi has posted the same article twice, creating two
>>>> threads.
>>> There's only one post on the subject from him at GG. For some
>>> reason Athel's response shows up as the start of a new thread.
>>
>> Perhaps GG has a way of detecting duplicate posts. (There are
>> surprisingly many of them, probably created when people think their
>> first attempt to send didn't succeed.) But of course that will only
>> cause confusion when one person has responded to one of the copies and
>> someone else has responded to the other. At that point two threads
>> exist, so confusion is created when GG deletes the head of one of the
>> threads.
>
> Instead of hurling accusations, why don't you ask arthur-Navi whether
> he started two threads with the same name, and why he hasn't responded
> to Athel's or Hibou's comments?
>
> If GG "has a way of detecting duplicate posts," why do I see, once every
> two or three weeks, the set of lettered "Monkey, Tree, ..." posts that seem
> to have something to do with Stonehenge? Of course each iteration might
> have a character changed somewhere, but I haven't read any version of
> any of them.

Obviously the answer is more complicated than "Google detected
duplicates". GG usually has no problem with showing all heads of
threads where double sending occurred.

But then, Navi posted with GG, and the headers of his duplicate posts
are different. The date field differs by about 45 minutes, and the
path field shows something different and a bit strange.

For the earlier message, which Athel replied to but which GG doesn't
show, the path I see is
*Path*:
eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!border-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail

For the later, which GG shows as a head of thread,
*Path*:
eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.mixmin.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail

Note what is to the left of "news-out.google.com" .... That appears to
be an IP belonging to Google LLC, according to whois data at
www.arin.net (American Registry for Internet Numbers, Ltd.).

I think GG had an upset tummy, and when the calcium carbonate or the
hydrogen blockers kicked in, GG found the message still in the queue,
and burped it out ... but with incorrect headers, which somebody
accepted anyway. Meanwhile, GG lost the original post, so Athel's
reply got taken as a thread head.

("Lost" may be incorrect ... this may be a supercedes attempt, so the
original post may have been intentionally discarded. But I don't think
the second post conforms to supercedes, which isn't a reliable
cancellation mechanism anyway.)

Both copies have a message-id, but the message ID is different. The
injection-info matches, so the same server seems to have sent both
copies.

One of the weirder GG behaviors I've seen.

/dps

--
"That’s where I end with this kind of conversation: Language is
crucial, and yet not the answer."
Jonathan Rosa, sociocultural and linguistic anthropologist,
Stanford.,2020

Remember when Snidely bragged outrageously? That was Sunday:
> On Saturday, Peter T. Daniels pointed out that ...
>> On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 9:11:34 AM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>> On 10/06/23 22:45, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 6:25:31 AM UTC-6, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>>>> On 09/06/23 23:29, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 8:36:17 PM UTC-4, arthurvv vart wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> Thank you very much, Peter, I had never heard of him. Here he is:
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Marr The question whether
>>>>>>> language is part of the superstructure or the base must be a real
>>>>>>> conundrum for Marxists. It can't be part of the base, can it? And if
>>>>>>> it is part of the superstructure why doesn't it change when the base
>>>>>>> changes. I guess they'd say it is neither part of the superstructure
>>>>>>> nor part of the base. Maybe if one adopts the Marxist viewpoint, one
>>>>>>> might say that the question is ill-formulated or something. Anyway,
>>>>>>> thanks.
>>>>>> This, in fact, is the original thread that AC-B diverged from.
>>>>> This confirms what I guessed in the other thread with the same Subject.
>>>>> Navi has posted the same article twice, creating two threads.
>>>> There's only one post on the subject from him at GG. For some reason
>>>> Athel's response shows up as the start of a new thread.
>>>
>>> Perhaps GG has a way of detecting duplicate posts. (There are surprisingly
>>> many of them, probably created when people think their first attempt to
>>> send didn't succeed.) But of course that will only cause confusion when
>>> one person has responded to one of the copies and someone else has
>>> responded to the other. At that point two threads exist, so confusion is
>>> created when GG deletes the head of one of the
>>> threads.
>>
>> Instead of hurling accusations, why don't you ask arthur-Navi whether he
>> started two threads with the same name, and why he hasn't responded to
>> Athel's or Hibou's comments?
>>
>> If GG "has a way of detecting duplicate posts," why do I see, once every
>> two or three weeks, the set of lettered "Monkey, Tree, ..." posts that seem
>> to have something to do with Stonehenge? Of course each iteration might
>> have a character changed somewhere, but I haven't read any version of any
>> of them.
>
> Obviously the answer is more complicated than "Google detected duplicates".
> GG usually has no problem with showing all heads of threads where double
> sending occurred.
>
> But then, Navi posted with GG, and the headers of his duplicate posts are
> different. The date field differs by about 45 minutes, and the path field
> shows something different and a bit strange.
>
> For the earlier message, which Athel replied to but which GG doesn't show,
> the path I see is
> *Path*:
> eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!border-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
>
> For the later, which GG shows as a head of thread,
> *Path*:
> eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.mixmin.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
>
> Note what is to the left of "news-out.google.com" .... That appears to be an
> IP belonging to Google LLC, according to whois data at www.arin.net (American
> Registry for Internet Numbers, Ltd.).
>
> I think GG had an upset tummy, and when the calcium carbonate or the hydrogen
> blockers kicked in, GG found the message still in the queue, and burped it
> out ... but with incorrect headers,

I missed this in editing ... because of some fat fingering, I thought
the second copy didn't have a message-id. When I did sport the MID, I
fixed my post in the obvious place, but left in this now-unjustified
remark.

> which somebody accepted anyway.
> Meanwhile, GG lost the original post, so Athel's reply got taken as a thread
> head.
>
> ("Lost" may be incorrect ... this may be a supercedes attempt, so the
> original post may have been intentionally discarded. But I don't think the
> second post conforms to supercedes, which isn't a reliable cancellation
> mechanism anyway.)
>
>
> Both copies have a message-id, but the message ID is different. The
> injection-info matches, so the same server seems to have sent both copies.
>
> One of the weirder GG behaviors I've seen.
>
> /dps

-d "when I'm wrong, I'm still sorta right"

--
And the Raiders and the Broncos have life now in the West. I thought
they were both nearly dead if not quite really most sincerely dead. --
Mike Salfino, fivethirtyeight.com

On Sunday, June 11, 2023 at 2:07:37 PM UTC-4, Snidely wrote:
> Remember when Snidely bragged outrageously? That was Sunday:
> > On Saturday, Peter T. Daniels pointed out that ...
> >> On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 9:11:34 AM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
> >>> On 10/06/23 22:45, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> >>>> On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 6:25:31 AM UTC-6, Peter Moylan wrote:
> >>>>> On 09/06/23 23:29, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>>>>> On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 8:36:17 PM UTC-4, arthurvv vart wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>>> Thank you very much, Peter, I had never heard of him. Here he is:
> >>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Marr The question whether
> >>>>>>> language is part of the superstructure or the base must be a real
> >>>>>>> conundrum for Marxists. It can't be part of the base, can it? And if
> >>>>>>> it is part of the superstructure why doesn't it change when the base
> >>>>>>> changes. I guess they'd say it is neither part of the superstructure
> >>>>>>> nor part of the base. Maybe if one adopts the Marxist viewpoint, one
> >>>>>>> might say that the question is ill-formulated or something. Anyway,
> >>>>>>> thanks.
> >>>>>> This, in fact, is the original thread that AC-B diverged from.
> >>>>> This confirms what I guessed in the other thread with the same Subject.
> >>>>> Navi has posted the same article twice, creating two threads.
> >>>> There's only one post on the subject from him at GG. For some reason
> >>>> Athel's response shows up as the start of a new thread.
> >>>
> >>> Perhaps GG has a way of detecting duplicate posts. (There are surprisingly
> >>> many of them, probably created when people think their first attempt to
> >>> send didn't succeed.) But of course that will only cause confusion when
> >>> one person has responded to one of the copies and someone else has
> >>> responded to the other. At that point two threads exist, so confusion is
> >>> created when GG deletes the head of one of the
> >>> threads.
> >>
> >> Instead of hurling accusations, why don't you ask arthur-Navi whether he
> >> started two threads with the same name, and why he hasn't responded to
> >> Athel's or Hibou's comments?
> >>
> >> If GG "has a way of detecting duplicate posts," why do I see, once every
> >> two or three weeks, the set of lettered "Monkey, Tree, ..." posts that seem
> >> to have something to do with Stonehenge? Of course each iteration might
> >> have a character changed somewhere, but I haven't read any version of any
> >> of them.
> >
> > Obviously the answer is more complicated than "Google detected duplicates".
> > GG usually has no problem with showing all heads of threads where double
> > sending occurred.
> >
> > But then, Navi posted with GG, and the headers of his duplicate posts are
> > different. The date field differs by about 45 minutes, and the path field
> > shows something different and a bit strange.
> >
> > For the earlier message, which Athel replied to but which GG doesn't show,
> > the path I see is
> > *Path*:
> > eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!border-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
> >
> > For the later, which GG shows as a head of thread,
> > *Path*:
> > eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.mixmin.net!proxad..net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
> >
> > Note what is to the left of "news-out.google.com" .... That appears to be an
> > IP belonging to Google LLC, according to whois data at www.arin.net (American
> > Registry for Internet Numbers, Ltd.).
> >
> > I think GG had an upset tummy, and when the calcium carbonate or the hydrogen
> > blockers kicked in, GG found the message still in the queue, and burped it
> > out ... but with incorrect headers,
> I missed this in editing ... because of some fat fingering, I thought
> the second copy didn't have a message-id. When I did sport the MID, I
> fixed my post in the obvious place, but left in this now-unjustified
> remark.
> > which somebody accepted anyway.
> > Meanwhile, GG lost the original post, so Athel's reply got taken as a thread
> > head.
> >
> > ("Lost" may be incorrect ... this may be a supercedes attempt, so the
> > original post may have been intentionally discarded. But I don't think the
> > second post conforms to supercedes, which isn't a reliable cancellation
> > mechanism anyway.)
> >
> >
> > Both copies have a message-id, but the message ID is different. The
> > injection-info matches, so the same server seems to have sent both copies.
> >
> > One of the weirder GG behaviors I've seen.
> >
> > /dps
> -d "when I'm wrong, I'm still sorta right"

If you look at your first of these two messages in GG, you'll see they are
quite not identical. The second thing's blue is interrupted by a passage
in black, framed by ! !, with a series of numbers (looks like an IP address0
and MISMATCH. My eyes aren't able to resolve the blue print sufficiently
to see other differences.

Looking at it in the quote above, the material between ! ! is entirely different
in the two things.

Remember when Peter T. Daniels bragged outrageously? That was Sunday:
> On Sunday, June 11, 2023 at 2:07:37 PM UTC-4, Snidely wrote:
>> Remember when Snidely bragged outrageously? That was Sunday:
>>> On Saturday, Peter T. Daniels pointed out that ...
>>>> On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 9:11:34 AM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>>>> On 10/06/23 22:45, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>>>>>> On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 6:25:31 AM UTC-6, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>>>>>> On 09/06/23 23:29, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 8:36:17 PM UTC-4, arthurvv vart wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Thank you very much, Peter, I had never heard of him. Here he is:
>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Marr The question whether
>>>>>>>>> language is part of the superstructure or the base must be a real
>>>>>>>>> conundrum for Marxists. It can't be part of the base, can it? And if
>>>>>>>>> it is part of the superstructure why doesn't it change when the base
>>>>>>>>> changes. I guess they'd say it is neither part of the superstructure
>>>>>>>>> nor part of the base. Maybe if one adopts the Marxist viewpoint, one
>>>>>>>>> might say that the question is ill-formulated or something. Anyway,
>>>>>>>>> thanks.
>>>>>>>> This, in fact, is the original thread that AC-B diverged from.
>>>>>>> This confirms what I guessed in the other thread with the same Subject.
>>>>>>> Navi has posted the same article twice, creating two threads.
>>>>>> There's only one post on the subject from him at GG. For some reason
>>>>>> Athel's response shows up as the start of a new thread.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps GG has a way of detecting duplicate posts. (There are
>>>>> surprisingly many of them, probably created when people think their
>>>>> first attempt to send didn't succeed.) But of course that will only
>>>>> cause confusion when one person has responded to one of the copies and
>>>>> someone else has responded to the other. At that point two threads
>>>>> exist, so confusion is created when GG deletes the head of one of the
>>>>> threads.
>>>>
>>>> Instead of hurling accusations, why don't you ask arthur-Navi whether he
>>>> started two threads with the same name, and why he hasn't responded to
>>>> Athel's or Hibou's comments?
>>>>
>>>> If GG "has a way of detecting duplicate posts," why do I see, once every
>>>> two or three weeks, the set of lettered "Monkey, Tree, ..." posts that
>>>> seem to have something to do with Stonehenge? Of course each iteration
>>>> might have a character changed somewhere, but I haven't read any version
>>>> of any of them.
>>>
>>> Obviously the answer is more complicated than "Google detected duplicates".
>>> GG usually has no problem with showing all heads of threads where double
>>> sending occurred.
>>>
>>> But then, Navi posted with GG, and the headers of his duplicate posts are
>>> different. The date field differs by about 45 minutes, and the path field
>>> shows something different and a bit strange.
>>>
>>> For the earlier message, which Athel replied to but which GG doesn't show,
>>> the path I see is
>>> *Path*:
>>> eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!border-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
>>>
>>> For the later, which GG shows as a head of thread,
>>> *Path*:
>>> eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.mixmin.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
>>>
>>> Note what is to the left of "news-out.google.com" .... That appears to be
>>> an IP belonging to Google LLC, according to whois data at www.arin.net
>>> (American Registry for Internet Numbers, Ltd.).
>>>
>>> I think GG had an upset tummy, and when the calcium carbonate or the
>>> hydrogen blockers kicked in, GG found the message still in the queue, and
>>> burped it out ... but with incorrect headers,
>> I missed this in editing ... because of some fat fingering, I thought
>> the second copy didn't have a message-id. When I did sport the MID, I
>> fixed my post in the obvious place, but left in this now-unjustified
>> remark.
>>> which somebody accepted anyway.
>>> Meanwhile, GG lost the original post, so Athel's reply got taken as a
>>> thread head.
>>>
>>> ("Lost" may be incorrect ... this may be a supercedes attempt, so the
>>> original post may have been intentionally discarded. But I don't think the
>>> second post conforms to supercedes, which isn't a reliable cancellation
>>> mechanism anyway.)
>>>
>>>
>>> Both copies have a message-id, but the message ID is different. The
>>> injection-info matches, so the same server seems to have sent both copies.
>>>
>>> One of the weirder GG behaviors I've seen.
>>>
>>> /dps
>> -d "when I'm wrong, I'm still sorta right"
>
> If you look at your first of these two messages in GG, you'll see they are
> quite not identical. The second thing's blue is interrupted by a passage
> in black, framed by ! !, with a series of numbers (looks like an IP address0
> and MISMATCH. My eyes aren't able to resolve the blue print sufficiently
> to see other differences.
>
> Looking at it in the quote above, the material between ! ! is entirely
> different in the two things.

Bingo!

/dps

--
"Maintaining a really good conspiracy requires far more intelligent
application, by a large number of people, than the world can readily
supply."

Sam Plusnet

On Sunday, June 11, 2023 at 6:03:35 PM UTC-4, Snidely wrote:
> Remember when Peter T. Daniels bragged outrageously? That was Sunday:
> > On Sunday, June 11, 2023 at 2:07:37 PM UTC-4, Snidely wrote:
> >> Remember when Snidely bragged outrageously? That was Sunday:
> >>> On Saturday, Peter T. Daniels pointed out that ...
> >>>> On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 9:11:34 AM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
> >>>>> On 10/06/23 22:45, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> >>>>>> On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 6:25:31 AM UTC-6, Peter Moylan wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 09/06/23 23:29, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> >>>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 8:36:17 PM UTC-4, arthurvv vart wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Thank you very much, Peter, I had never heard of him. Here he is:
> >>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Marr The question whether
> >>>>>>>>> language is part of the superstructure or the base must be a real
> >>>>>>>>> conundrum for Marxists. It can't be part of the base, can it? And if
> >>>>>>>>> it is part of the superstructure why doesn't it change when the base
> >>>>>>>>> changes. I guess they'd say it is neither part of the superstructure
> >>>>>>>>> nor part of the base. Maybe if one adopts the Marxist viewpoint, one
> >>>>>>>>> might say that the question is ill-formulated or something. Anyway,
> >>>>>>>>> thanks.
> >>>>>>>> This, in fact, is the original thread that AC-B diverged from.
> >>>>>>> This confirms what I guessed in the other thread with the same Subject.
> >>>>>>> Navi has posted the same article twice, creating two threads.
> >>>>>> There's only one post on the subject from him at GG. For some reason
> >>>>>> Athel's response shows up as the start of a new thread.
> >>>>> Perhaps GG has a way of detecting duplicate posts. (There are
> >>>>> surprisingly many of them, probably created when people think their
> >>>>> first attempt to send didn't succeed.) But of course that will only
> >>>>> cause confusion when one person has responded to one of the copies and
> >>>>> someone else has responded to the other. At that point two threads
> >>>>> exist, so confusion is created when GG deletes the head of one of the
> >>>>> threads.
> >>>> Instead of hurling accusations, why don't you ask arthur-Navi whether he
> >>>> started two threads with the same name, and why he hasn't responded to
> >>>> Athel's or Hibou's comments?
> >>>> If GG "has a way of detecting duplicate posts," why do I see, once every
> >>>> two or three weeks, the set of lettered "Monkey, Tree, ..." posts that
> >>>> seem to have something to do with Stonehenge? Of course each iteration
> >>>> might have a character changed somewhere, but I haven't read any version
> >>>> of any of them.
> >>> Obviously the answer is more complicated than "Google detected duplicates".
> >>> GG usually has no problem with showing all heads of threads where double
> >>> sending occurred.
> >>> But then, Navi posted with GG, and the headers of his duplicate posts are
> >>> different. The date field differs by about 45 minutes, and the path field
> >>> shows something different and a bit strange.
> >>> For the earlier message, which Athel replied to but which GG doesn't show,
> >>> the path I see is
> >>> *Path*:
> >>> eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!border-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
> >>> For the later, which GG shows as a head of thread,
> >>> *Path*:
> >>> eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.mixmin.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
> >>> Note what is to the left of "news-out.google.com" .... That appears to be
> >>> an IP belonging to Google LLC, according to whois data at www.arin.net
> >>> (American Registry for Internet Numbers, Ltd.).
> >>> I think GG had an upset tummy, and when the calcium carbonate or the
> >>> hydrogen blockers kicked in, GG found the message still in the queue, and
> >>> burped it out ... but with incorrect headers,
> >> I missed this in editing ... because of some fat fingering, I thought
> >> the second copy didn't have a message-id. When I did sport the MID, I
> >> fixed my post in the obvious place, but left in this now-unjustified
> >> remark.
> >>> which somebody accepted anyway.
> >>> Meanwhile, GG lost the original post, so Athel's reply got taken as a
> >>> thread head.
> >>> ("Lost" may be incorrect ... this may be a supercedes attempt, so the
> >>> original post may have been intentionally discarded. But I don't think the
> >>> second post conforms to supercedes, which isn't a reliable cancellation
> >>> mechanism anyway.)
> >>> Both copies have a message-id, but the message ID is different. The
> >>> injection-info matches, so the same server seems to have sent both copies.
> >>> One of the weirder GG behaviors I've seen.
> >>> /dps
> >> -d "when I'm wrong, I'm still sorta right"
> > If you look at your first of these two messages in GG, you'll see they are
> > quite not identical. The second thing's blue is interrupted by a passage
> > in black, framed by ! !, with a series of numbers (looks like an IP address0
> > and MISMATCH. My eyes aren't able to resolve the blue print sufficiently
> > to see other differences.
> > Looking at it in the quote above, the material between ! ! is entirely
> > different in the two things.
>
> Bingo!

Is that your "to the left of"?

Nu, what does that have to do with the fact that arthur-Navi only started
one thread?

Probably the change in header/ing/thing by prefixing "Re:" is what broke
the thread. But why would someone (other than the Hen) do that?

On 13/06/23 00:40, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> Nu, what does that have to do with the fact that arthur-Navi only
> started one thread?

You continue to miss the point. He started two threads. For some unknown
reason, GG failed to show one of his messages, but the two messages and
the two threads show up on other newsreaders.

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 9:50:03 PM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 13/06/23 00:40, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> > Nu, what does that have to do with the fact that arthur-Navi only
> > started one thread?
>
> You continue to miss the point. He started two threads. For some unknown
> reason, GG failed to show one of his messages, but the two messages and
> the two threads show up on other newsreaders.

I sure wish he'd confirm that.

If he started the second one, why has her not responded in it while
continuing to respond in the first one?

On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 6:49:33 AM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 9:50:03 PM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
> > On 13/06/23 00:40, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > > Nu, what does that have to do with the fact that arthur-Navi only
> > > started one thread?
> >
> > You continue to miss the point. He started two threads. For some unknown
> > reason, GG failed to show one of his messages, but the two messages and
> > the two threads show up on other newsreaders.
> I sure wish he'd confirm that.
>
> If he started the second one, why has her not responded in it while
> continuing to respond in the first one?

Thank you all very much,

I really don't remember what happened. I might have deleted a post
and reposted an edited version of it. If a post hasn't received a reply,
I might on very rare occasions do that.

I am guessing that is what happened. But I can't
be sure. I suppose the deleted post wasn't deleted in certain
cyber-locations.

My apologies to all.

I have not even seen the other replies. I was unaware of this
until now.

Respectfully,
Navi

I checked. I must have deleted the first post
simply because the title had a comma instead of
a slash. I saw that it hadn't been replied too,
deleted it and started a new thread.

The old one was not deleted on some newsreaders.

My apologies.

Respectfully,
Navi

On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 11:38:14 PM UTC-4, arthurvv vart wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 6:49:33 AM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 9:50:03 PM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
> > > On 13/06/23 00:40, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >
> > > > Nu, what does that have to do with the fact that arthur-Navi only
> > > > started one thread?
> > >
> > > You continue to miss the point. He started two threads. For some unknown
> > > reason, GG failed to show one of his messages, but the two messages and
> > > the two threads show up on other newsreaders.
> > I sure wish he'd confirm that.
> >
> > If he started the second one, why has her not responded in it while
> > continuing to respond in the first one?
> Thank you all very much,
>
> I really don't remember what happened. I might have deleted a post
> and reposted an edited version of it. If a post hasn't received a reply,
> I might on very rare occasions do that.
>
>
> I am guessing that is what happened. But I can't
> be sure. I suppose the deleted post wasn't deleted in certain
> cyber-locations.
>
> My apologies to all.
>
> I have not even seen the other replies. I was unaware of this
> until now.

If you "delete" a post in GG, it only disappears from GG. Everyone
else still sees it.

It's odd, then, that GG "deleting" the first message in a thread
doesn't cause the thread to also not be shown. (_Within_ a thread,
replies to a deleted post do appear. But a thread ought to be
qualitatively different.)