Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 08:54:29 -0500, Black Dragon wrote:
>> William Poaster wrote:
>>> Yes, a few other archives ignore the "X-No-Archive" header, that's why
>>> it's a waste of time!
>> Since you're claiming XNA is "a waste of time", why then do you and
>> several other cola regulars always make such a big fuss about it?
> Two reasons. One is that an archive ignoring it is the exception, not the
> rule, meaning an XNA post may well slip through all the usual haunts,
> unrecorded.
Well that's unfortunate because I couldn't care less were my posts are
archived as long as they're not archived on Google. If I were inclined
to create a Usenet archive, I surely wouldn't honor XNA. If Google
stopped honoring XNA tomorrow I wouldn't be pleased about it, but I
wouldn't stop posting on Usenet either.
> Second, though, is probably more important: if you have to set XNA,
> doesn't this tend to indicate you're trying to hide something, that, say,
> you want to be able to spew a mess of complete and utter tripe whilst
> being able to deny it later, because it's not archived, for example?
No sir. There are many reasons why people use XNA, I gave one of mine in
a followup to Roy Schestowitz.
> If you don't want your posts recorded... don't post.
Imagine that.
--
Black Dragon
We have reason to believe that man first walked upright to free
his hands for masturbation.
-- Lily Tomlin
|
|
