Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....)

Newsgroups	comp.lang.python
Date	2013-10-26 07:55 -0700
References	<6f2b7$525f2302$5419b3e4$13466@cache1.tilbu1.nb.home.nl> <13f400f3-7f64-45e3-8483-160fd1f28158@googlegroups.com> <mailman.1542.1382731552.18130.python-list@python.org> <cdfd7c4b-f562-45a4-856b-7613953ed6b4@googlegroups.com> <mailman.1564.1382747110.18130.python-list@python.org>
Message-ID	<7a78c000-9630-4373-b91f-e344a16212e9@googlegroups.com> (permalink)
Subject	Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....)
From	rurpy@yahoo.com

Show all headers | View raw

On 10/25/2013 06:25 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 10:44 AM,  <rurpy@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Peter, you can ignore Terry's "advice" if Google Groups works for you.
>> There are a small number of Google haters here who seem larger due to
>> their obnoxious noisiness.
>>
>> I've been using Google Groups to post here for many years and with a
>> little care it is usable without annoying anyone except a few drooling
>> fanatics.  All access methods have pros and cons (and I've posted here
>> about many of TB numerous cons) so if the usability tradeoff favors
>> GG for you (or anyone else) I recommend you not be intimidated by
>> the anti-GG goon squad.
> 
> As soon as we hear of people automatically blacklisting any posts that
> come from Thunderbird, I'll believe you that they're on par. Until
> then, no matter how courteous you might be in your use of GG (which
> still makes you part of an extremely small minority), you still have a
> fundamental downside in that your message simply won't get to
> everyone.

I am aware of that.  As I said the last time the subject came up,

* So what?  Anyone too lazy or with too much need to control, to
 not skip over posts they find annoying probably is someone unlikely
 to offer anything constructive in any thread I'm participating
 in.

* It is not at all clear that the number who actually completely
 ignore GG is more than a very small number.

* Life's full of tradeoffs.  The convenience of GG to some people
 is worth the downside.

Thread

Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. "Skybuck Flying" <Windows7IsOK@DreamPC2006.com> - 2013-10-17 01:36 +0200
  Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. "Skybuck Flying" <Windows7IsOK@DreamPC2006.com> - 2013-10-17 01:44 +0200
  Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2013-10-17 10:47 +1100
  Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2013-10-17 09:06 +0000
  Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Peter Cacioppi <peter.cacioppi@gmail.com> - 2013-10-17 16:53 -0700
    Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Skip Montanaro <skip.montanaro@gmail.com> - 2013-10-17 19:39 -0500
    Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Peter Cacioppi <peter.cacioppi@gmail.com> - 2013-10-17 17:41 -0700
    Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-10-18 08:40 +0100
    Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-10-18 18:44 +1100
    Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-10-18 09:11 +0100
      Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Peter Cacioppi <peter.cacioppi@gmail.com> - 2013-10-21 14:19 -0700
        Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Dave Angel <davea@davea.name> - 2013-10-22 03:34 +0000
  Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Peter Cacioppi <peter.cacioppi@gmail.com> - 2013-10-17 17:43 -0700
    Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-10-18 08:42 +0100
  Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-10-21 22:35 +0100
  Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2013-10-23 15:13 +0200
    Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. "Skybuck Flying" <Windows7IsOK@DreamPC2006.com> - 2013-10-24 22:02 +0200
      Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-10-25 15:13 +0100
      Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2013-10-28 10:58 +0100
      Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2013-10-28 11:49 +0100
        Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. "Skybuck Flying" <Windows7IsOK@DreamPC2006.com> - 2013-10-29 12:37 +0100
          Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-10-29 14:08 +0000
            Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-29 13:00 -0700
              Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2013-10-30 10:22 +0000
                Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-30 19:48 -0700
                Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2013-10-31 08:41 +0000
                Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-31 21:41 -0700
                Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-11-01 05:41 +0000
                Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-11-01 18:50 -0700
                Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-11-02 03:52 +0000
                Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-11-03 09:46 -0800
                Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Joshua Landau <joshua@landau.ws> - 2013-11-02 18:22 +0000
                Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-11-03 05:17 +0000
                Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2013-11-03 10:45 +0100
                Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-11-03 09:50 -0800
                Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2013-11-03 19:49 +0100
                Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2013-11-04 09:11 +1100
                Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2013-11-04 09:38 +0100
                Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2013-11-04 20:07 +1100
                Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2013-11-04 10:38 +0100
                Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-11-02 18:36 +0000
                Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2013-11-01 13:50 +0100
                Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-11-01 18:51 -0700
                Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2013-11-02 12:15 +0100
          Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2013-11-01 00:53 +0100
            Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. "Skybuck Flying" <Windows7IsOK@DreamPC2006.com> - 2013-11-02 20:49 +0100
              Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-11-03 15:17 +1100
        Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> - 2013-10-29 19:08 +0100
          Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2013-11-01 00:44 +0100
  Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Peter Cacioppi <peter.cacioppi@gmail.com> - 2013-10-25 11:57 -0700
    Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2013-10-25 16:05 -0400
      Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-25 16:44 -0700
        Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-10-26 01:19 +0100
          Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-26 07:58 -0700
            Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-10-26 16:38 +0100
              Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-26 21:36 -0700
        Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-10-26 11:25 +1100
          Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-26 07:55 -0700
        Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2013-10-25 20:35 -0400
          Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-26 08:00 -0700
        Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-10-26 02:40 +0000
          Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-10-26 05:15 -0700
            Re: Don't use default Google Group client Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2013-10-27 00:02 +1100
            Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-26 08:07 -0700
            Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-10-27 00:25 +1100
              Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-26 21:43 -0700
          Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-26 08:05 -0700
            Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-10-26 17:24 +0000
              Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-26 21:33 -0700
            Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-10-27 09:15 +1100
              Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-26 21:45 -0700
          Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2013-10-28 14:23 +0000
    Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. "Rhodri James" <rhodri@wildebst.demon.co.uk> - 2013-10-25 22:09 +0100
  Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Peter Cacioppi <peter.cacioppi@gmail.com> - 2013-10-26 13:37 -0700
    Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-10-26 18:45 -0700
      Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-10-27 12:56 +1100
        Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-27 22:29 -0700
      Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-26 22:04 -0700
        Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-10-27 00:59 -0700
          Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-27 22:40 -0700
            Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-10-27 22:56 -0700
              Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-10-27 23:51 -0700
                Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-28 21:03 -0700
                Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-10-29 17:22 +1100
                Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-30 19:53 -0700
                OT: Hierarchies [was Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea.] Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-11-01 07:00 +0000
                Re: OT: Hierarchies [was Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea.] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-11-01 19:19 +1100
                Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2013-10-29 08:45 -0400
      Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2013-10-27 12:10 -0400
    Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-10-27 03:53 -0700
  Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Peter Cacioppi <peter.cacioppi@gmail.com> - 2013-10-26 19:02 -0700
  Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Peter Cacioppi <peter.cacioppi@gmail.com> - 2013-11-02 12:40 -0700

csiph-web