This case was some years ago,however I must comment. These officers are
on a call to protect & serve. So no I disagree w/the comment of John R.
And I also agree w/the comments of BRENDA! IMO,The 15 yr. old is the
sole being who should be held responsible for his actions that had
consequences! And in truth if his dogs were being used in that instance
as a source of protection for him....then in other words he was using
them as weapons! Not only should the dogs have been hauled off
(unfortunately not thier own fault) but the 15 yr old as well......"IN
CUFFS". These officers follow a direct order and given proceedure in
all cases & instances! Why is some1 always trying to pass the buck!???
Hmmmm??!!

on 2005-01-26 at 00:04 wrote:

This case was some years ago,however I must comment.

please, have some self control and refrain from replying to
ancient messages. this thread is 5 1/2 years old. none of
the original participants now participate in this group, so
they will not see your comments.

and, on a possibly good note, i received a real-ish message
from Google this morning stating that they are aware of this,
um, feature, and programmers are supposedly working on fixing
it.

--
shelly
http://home.bluemarble.net/~scouvrette
http://cat-sidh.blogspot.com/ (updated dailyish, apparently)

Since the case was some years ago none of us know what you're talking about
nor are the posters you mention reading this. If you don't know what usenet
is please look it up. You'll know that its *not* a board, chat group or
forum. Its general courtesy to include the relevant bits of what you're
commenting on in your post so that people will know what you speak of. Its
also fairly useless and a waste of everyone's time (this includes yours) to
reply to an old post because the participants are likely not reading nor
does anyone recall the content.

--
Tara who is ready to pull her hair out from Google's abuse of usenet.

"shelly" wrote in message
arble.net...

and, on a possibly good note, i received a real-ish message
from Google this morning stating that they are aware of this,
um, feature, and programmers are supposedly working on fixing
it.

Well I'll be damned. Let's see if they were pacifying you or if they really
give a rat's behind about how many people they are annoying to no end.


--
Tara

In article ,
Tee wrote:
Well I'll be damned. Let's see if they were pacifying you or if they really
give a rat's behind about how many people they are annoying to no end.

I tend to think that they do care, at least in the sense
that they're an extremely geeky company and care about
whether or not their technology is working as correctly as
possible. Software that annoys the hell out of people isn't
working correctly.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

Let us develop a kind of dangerous unselfishness -- ML King

"Melinda Shore" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Tee wrote:
Well I'll be damned. Let's see if they were pacifying you or if they
really
give a rat's behind about how many people they are annoying to no end.

I tend to think that they do care, at least in the sense
that they're an extremely geeky company and care about
whether or not their technology is working as correctly as
possible. Software that annoys the hell out of people isn't
working correctly.

*But* they are attracting, or so it seems, many more people to their website
now and it would seem alot of those people are participating and coming
back. So will they take the stance you propose (and I do agree the company
is like you say and other than having their hands on usenet I do like them)
or will they concern themselves more with the number of new
hits/participants they are reaping due to the changes. Alot of companies
would choose to ignore the smaller issue while spending all their efforts
expanding the bigger, more profitable one. I'd like to think they can &
will do both but I'm not holding my breath.

--
Tara

on 2005-01-26 at 09:03 wrote:

Well I'll be damned. Let's see if they were pacifying you or
if they really give a rat's behind about how many people they
are annoying to no end.

i guess we'll see! i'm hopeful, though. as Melinda said, i
think they *do* want their software to work smoothly.

another "feature" i noticed when i looked up the original post
in this thread is that, if you Google by message ID, it brings
up the original post but you cannot view the thread. in order
to look at the complete thread, in order to see who'd posted
to it, i had to then go back and search by subject.

--
shelly
http://home.bluemarble.net/~scouvrette
http://cat-sidh.blogspot.com/ (updated dailyish, apparently)

In article ,
Tee wrote:
So will they take the stance you propose (and I do agree the company
is like you say and other than having their hands on usenet I do like them)
or will they concern themselves more with the number of new
hits/participants they are reaping due to the changes. Alot of companies
would choose to ignore the smaller issue while spending all their efforts
expanding the bigger, more profitable one. I'd like to think they can &
will do both but I'm not holding my breath.

I really don't know, but I tend to think that they're not
going to make nearly as much money from Usenet access, or
even from selling advertising, as they are from selling
their search technology.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

Let us develop a kind of dangerous unselfishness -- ML King

shelly said in rec.pets.dogs.behavior:

and, on a possibly good note, i received a real-ish message
from Google this morning stating that they are aware of this,
um, feature, and programmers are supposedly working on fixing
it.

I must be more important than you. Google wrote me *yesterday*
and told me that they had *Engineers* working on it.

My tactic has been to killfile the google poster, explaining
why, and CCing

--
--Matt. Rocky's a Dog.

In article ,
Rocky wrote:
I must be more important than you. Google wrote me *yesterday*
and told me that they had *Engineers* working on it.

It must be really hard if they've had to take it away from
programmers and give it to engineers!

Actually, I bet the UI part of it really is hard, come to
think of it. Telling users that they can follow up this
post but not that post could be confusing.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

Let us develop a kind of dangerous unselfishness -- ML King