Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

kazaa lite connection problem in xp

Last response: in Networking
Share
Anonymous
June 27, 2004 11:08:40 PM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.p2p,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web (More info?)

Greetings

I've just got a new laptop running XP and have installed the old version of
Kazaa Lite that I was running with no problems (connection or otherwise) on
my old Win98 system. When I try to open Kazaa Lite I get the 'connecting...'
notification in the bottom of the screen but it never connects. I have
turned off the XP internal firewall as I am using ZoneAlarm firewall and am
not sure if it this that is affecting it, although it didn't on my Win98
machine.

Any ideas?

Many thanks

Mat
June 27, 2004 11:08:41 PM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.p2p,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web (More info?)

"Mat" <buffaloes@DELETE2REPLYbigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:cbn2f8$8gk$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Greetings
>
> I've just got a new laptop running XP and have installed the old version
> of
> Kazaa Lite that I was running with no problems (connection or otherwise)
> on
> my old Win98 system. When I try to open Kazaa Lite I get the
> 'connecting...'
> notification in the bottom of the screen but it never connects. I have
> turned off the XP internal firewall as I am using ZoneAlarm firewall and
> am
> not sure if it this that is affecting it, although it didn't on my Win98
> machine.
>
> Any ideas?
>
> Many thanks
>
> Mat
>

Most here are not going to help you with Kazaa of any flavor.

Anyway, try this latest version before Kazaa went to selling their services.
this is a good version that I use from time to time.

http://home.insightbb.com/~guesswho192/klitekpp242e.exe
Anonymous
June 28, 2004 2:33:04 PM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.p2p,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web (More info?)

> I've just got a new laptop running XP and have installed the old version
of
> Kazaa Lite that I was running with no problems (connection or otherwise)
on
> my old Win98 system. When I try to open Kazaa Lite I get the
'connecting...'
> notification in the bottom of the screen but it never connects. I have
> turned off the XP internal firewall as I am using ZoneAlarm firewall and
am
> not sure if it this that is affecting it, although it didn't on my Win98
> machine.

I wouldn't touch the Kazaa program or its network. Full of viruses, fakes,
hackers and vulnerabilities.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
June 28, 2004 8:54:41 PM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.p2p,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web (More info?)

"Demure Guise" <no@reply.please.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cboo9f$fcv$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> > I've just got a new laptop running XP and have installed the old version
> of
> > Kazaa Lite that I was running with no problems (connection or otherwise)
> on
> > my old Win98 system. When I try to open Kazaa Lite I get the
> 'connecting...'
> > notification in the bottom of the screen but it never connects. I have
> > turned off the XP internal firewall as I am using ZoneAlarm firewall and
> am
> > not sure if it this that is affecting it, although it didn't on my Win98
> > machine.
>
> I wouldn't touch the Kazaa program or its network. Full of viruses, fakes,
> hackers and vulnerabilities.
>
He is referring to Kazaa lite which has no nasty extras.

This NG seems full of anti Kazaa people. I have a fantastic collection
thanks to Kazaa, Even the original Kazaa with it's adware and spyware wasn't
a problem as long as you ran a good firewall. If you are downloading music
or movies then virus's don't come into it. If you download an application
from any peer to peer application then there is a risk of a virus, but as
there is plenty of good free anti virus software available on line, that is
no problem either.

That said. If you don't like Kazaa then don't run it, but there is no need
to continually run it or any other P2P application down.

In short: GROW UP.
Anonymous
June 28, 2004 10:33:16 PM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.p2p,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web (More info?)

> I wouldn't touch the Kazaa program or its network. Full of viruses, fakes,
> hackers and vulnerabilities.

Spoken like someone who has never tried it. Kazaa Lite (not KMD) is a
wonderful source to download just about anything. I have over 5,000
perfect MP3's and hundreds of software titles thanks to this network.
Where else can one find over 3,000,000 users online sharing over a
BILLION files! It has it's share of fakes and viruses just like any
other P2P network. Smart users can work around this.

Tom
Anonymous
June 29, 2004 3:09:56 AM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.p2p,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web (More info?)

In article <QZmdnU4i0rAxAX3dRVn-jA@comcast.com>, "tgeer43[AT]yahoo
[DOTcom" <"tgeer43[AT]yahoo[DOTcom"> says...
>
> > I wouldn't touch the Kazaa program or its network. Full of viruses, fakes,
> > hackers and vulnerabilities.
>
> Spoken like someone who has never tried it. Kazaa Lite (not KMD) is a
> wonderful source to download just about anything. I have over 5,000
> perfect MP3's and hundreds of software titles thanks to this network.
> Where else can one find over 3,000,000 users online sharing over a
> BILLION files! It has it's share of fakes and viruses just like any
> other P2P network. Smart users can work around this.

Smart users? Those are the ones that are not stealing things that others
have copywrited, ones that the RIAA is not after, ones that only share
public works, etc...

--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)
Anonymous
June 29, 2004 3:09:57 AM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.p2p,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web (More info?)

I tried it. Then I fixed all the problems, and adjusted firewalls, and
tried it again. I fixed more problems, deleted it, cleaned things up and
went to WinMX and have never looked back. I would NOT have kazaa, or AOL,
or anything with "REAL" in the name.

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b4a6f7b749712b798a6d2@news-server-fe-02.columbus.rr.com...
> In article <QZmdnU4i0rAxAX3dRVn-jA@comcast.com>, "tgeer43[AT]yahoo
> [DOTcom" <"tgeer43[AT]yahoo[DOTcom"> says...
> >
> > > I wouldn't touch the Kazaa program or its network. Full of viruses,
fakes,
> > > hackers and vulnerabilities.
> >
> > Spoken like someone who has never tried it. Kazaa Lite (not KMD) is a
> > wonderful source to download just about anything. I have over 5,000
> > perfect MP3's and hundreds of software titles thanks to this network.
> > Where else can one find over 3,000,000 users online sharing over a
> > BILLION files! It has it's share of fakes and viruses just like any
> > other P2P network. Smart users can work around this.
>
> Smart users? Those are the ones that are not stealing things that others
> have copywrited, ones that the RIAA is not after, ones that only share
> public works, etc...
>
> --
> --
> spamfree999@rrohio.com
> (Remove 999 to reply to me)


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.712 / Virus Database: 468 - Release Date: 6/27/2004
Anonymous
June 29, 2004 4:31:20 AM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.p2p,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web (More info?)

In article <uR5EvpWXEHA.748@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl>, fake@nowhere.org
says...
> I tried it. Then I fixed all the problems, and adjusted firewalls, and
> tried it again. I fixed more problems, deleted it, cleaned things up and
> went to WinMX and have never looked back. I would NOT have kazaa, or AOL,
> or anything with "REAL" in the name.

Not sure if your top posting reply was to me or not, hard to follow top-
posters when the world is full of proper bottom posters.

>
> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1b4a6f7b749712b798a6d2@news-server-fe-02.columbus.rr.com...
> > In article <QZmdnU4i0rAxAX3dRVn-jA@comcast.com>, "tgeer43[AT]yahoo
> > [DOTcom" <"tgeer43[AT]yahoo[DOTcom"> says...
> > >
> > > > I wouldn't touch the Kazaa program or its network. Full of viruses,
> fakes,
> > > > hackers and vulnerabilities.
> > >
> > > Spoken like someone who has never tried it. Kazaa Lite (not KMD) is a
> > > wonderful source to download just about anything. I have over 5,000
> > > perfect MP3's and hundreds of software titles thanks to this network.
> > > Where else can one find over 3,000,000 users online sharing over a
> > > BILLION files! It has it's share of fakes and viruses just like any
> > > other P2P network. Smart users can work around this.
> >
> > Smart users? Those are the ones that are not stealing things that others
> > have copywrited, ones that the RIAA is not after, ones that only share
> > public works, etc...
> >
> > --
> > --
> > spamfree999@rrohio.com
> > (Remove 999 to reply to me)
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.712 / Virus Database: 468 - Release Date: 6/27/2004
>
>
>

--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)
Anonymous
June 29, 2004 4:31:21 AM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.p2p,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web (More info?)

Bottom posting is proper because YOU say so? I think not. Top posting is
the only way to go. No, that's wrong. It's one of many ways to go, and a
matter of personal choice.

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b4a828ef5f1a3e498a6d3@news-server-fe-02.columbus.rr.com...
> In article <uR5EvpWXEHA.748@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl>, fake@nowhere.org
> says...
> > I tried it. Then I fixed all the problems, and adjusted firewalls, and
> > tried it again. I fixed more problems, deleted it, cleaned things up
and
> > went to WinMX and have never looked back. I would NOT have kazaa, or
AOL,
> > or anything with "REAL" in the name.
>
> Not sure if your top posting reply was to me or not, hard to follow top-
> posters when the world is full of proper bottom posters.
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.712 / Virus Database: 468 - Release Date: 6/27/2004
Anonymous
June 29, 2004 5:57:06 AM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.p2p,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web (More info?)

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 20:50:50 -0500, Jone Doe wrote:
> Bottom posting is proper because YOU say so? I think not.


FYI: Topposting aggravates lots of the people from whom you are asking help.
I am not one, but I also try to discourage its use because it
makes reading search engine results much easier.
As a matter of fact, this paragraph is a top post example.

You may want to read http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html
and/or http://www.dickalba.demon.co.uk/usenet/guide/faq_topp.h...
Please use "alt.test" or any of the 400+ test groups ending in
.test to adjust/test your news reader to make it quit top posting.

Before anyone responds about this FYI, do read the following
results from about 1,820,000+ top posting responses found at
<http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8...;
so as not to repeat anyone.
Anonymous
June 29, 2004 6:09:26 AM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.p2p,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web (More info?)

In article <O20lEvXXEHA.3120@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>, fake@nowhere.org
says...
> Bottom posting is proper because YOU say so? I think not.

Actually, it has nothing to do with me - it's the norm on Usenet and is
also the suggested method since Usenet was created. Read about it if you
don't believe me.


--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)
Anonymous
June 29, 2004 12:01:12 PM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.p2p,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web (More info?)

> Spoken like someone who has never tried it.

I have tried it you idiot, that is why I will not touch it again. There are
better p2p programs. Yes, i'll accept they also have problems, but Kazaa is
the worst
Anonymous
June 29, 2004 12:08:56 PM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.p2p,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web (More info?)

> He is referring to Kazaa lite which has no nasty extras.

So lite is free of hackers and fakes is it?

> This NG seems full of anti Kazaa people. I have a fantastic collection
> thanks to Kazaa, Even the original Kazaa with it's adware and spyware
wasn't
> a problem as long as you ran a good firewall. If you are downloading music
> or movies then virus's don't come into it. If you download an application
> from any peer to peer application then there is a risk of a virus, but as
> there is plenty of good free anti virus software available on line, that
is
> no problem either.

Perhaps if you tried other p2p programs, you will find better p2p program

> That said. If you don't like Kazaa then don't run it, but there is no need
> to continually run it or any other P2P application down.

I don't use it you idiot. Should have guessed that one from my original
posting. BTW I don't continually run Kazaa down but it's my opinion that it
is a terrible program but certainly by no means the worst. If you don't like
peoples' opinions then go and live in China

> In short: GROW UP.
>
In short GROW UP and stop judging people on 2 sentences
Anonymous
June 29, 2004 8:45:08 PM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.p2p,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web (More info?)

Erm, so ashamedly attempting to get seek advice on my original query...


"Demure Guise" <no@reply.please.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cbr3on$rp6$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> > Spoken like someone who has never tried it.
>
> I have tried it you idiot, that is why I will not touch it again. There
are
> better p2p programs. Yes, i'll accept they also have problems, but Kazaa
is
> the worst
>
>
Anonymous
June 29, 2004 11:09:10 PM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.p2p,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web (More info?)

"Demure Guise" <no@reply.please.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cbr476$s44$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> > He is referring to Kazaa lite which has no nasty extras.
>
> So lite is free of hackers and fakes is it?
>
> > This NG seems full of anti Kazaa people. I have a fantastic collection
> > thanks to Kazaa, Even the original Kazaa with it's adware and spyware
> wasn't
> > a problem as long as you ran a good firewall. If you are downloading
music
> > or movies then virus's don't come into it. If you download an
application
> > from any peer to peer application then there is a risk of a virus, but
as
> > there is plenty of good free anti virus software available on line, that
> is
> > no problem either.
>
> Perhaps if you tried other p2p programs, you will find better p2p program
>
> > That said. If you don't like Kazaa then don't run it, but there is no
need
> > to continually run it or any other P2P application down.
>
> I don't use it you idiot. Should have guessed that one from my original
> posting. BTW I don't continually run Kazaa down but it's my opinion that
it
> is a terrible program but certainly by no means the worst. If you don't
like
> peoples' opinions then go and live in China
>
> > In short: GROW UP.
> >
> In short GROW UP and stop judging people on 2 sentences
>
I wasn't referring to 2 sentences. I was referring to dozens of posting you
find on here day in day out, but if the cap fits......
Anonymous
June 30, 2004 12:13:05 AM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.p2p,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web (More info?)

> I wasn't referring to 2 sentences. I was referring to dozens of posting
you
> find on here day in day out, but if the cap fits......

What are you talking about?
Anonymous
June 30, 2004 1:01:31 AM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.p2p,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web (More info?)

In article <40e1b47c$0$292$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com>, Jess127
@hotmail.con says...
> As for top posting. I see nothing wrong with it either. Just because it
> wasn't the norm in the past doesn't mean it can't change

Top posting, as well as not snipping the parts that are no longer needed
is indeed a method of the new, uninformed users.

Imagine people reading usenet like you do a book - it starts at the top,
progresses down the page, with new content at the bottom. At least in
most English based groups.

You don't have to like it, but if you are going to use something
properly then you should follow the basic directions. If you have no
intention of following the directions then don't complain when others
point it out to you - or stop using something you don't intend on using
properly.

Not only wasn't it the norm in the past, it's not the norm now.

--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)
Anonymous
June 30, 2004 1:01:32 AM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.p2p,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web (More info?)

Leythos wrote:

<snip>

Top posting, as well as not snipping the parts that are no longer needed
is indeed a method of the new, uninformed users.

<snip>

Lol..what bullshit. Some of the most experienced and informed users top
post. What a self righteous idiot.
Anonymous
June 30, 2004 1:01:32 AM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.p2p,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web (More info?)

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b4ba43db2629b8598a6e0@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> In article <40e1b47c$0$292$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com>, Jess127
> @hotmail.con says...
> > As for top posting. I see nothing wrong with it either. Just because it
> > wasn't the norm in the past doesn't mean it can't change
>
> Top posting, as well as not snipping the parts that are no longer needed
> is indeed a method of the new, uninformed users.

I'll put it down here, just to make you happy, although I prefer and most
often top post. New, and uninformed. Well, the first operating system I
played with was DOS 1.25 (a). I even managed to to get a 10 meg hard drive
going with that system. Before that of course I had the "play" computers,
both Timex Sinclair and the Radio Shack version. At college we had the main
frame, which we accessed via IBM punch cards. I could probably still
program in COBOL if I had to.

Again, it's a matter of choice. Top post or bottom post as you prefer.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.712 / Virus Database: 468 - Release Date: 6/27/2004
June 30, 2004 1:01:32 AM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.p2p,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web (More info?)

If top posting is not acceptable, why is it the default method when you
click on reply to group??? I prefer to read a top posted message response. I
have already read the rest of the thread. Why wade through it again just to
see what one poster has to say?

JAX
Anonymous
June 30, 2004 1:19:54 AM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.p2p,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web (More info?)

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b4ba43db2629b8598a6e0@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> In article <40e1b47c$0$292$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com>, Jess127
> @hotmail.con says...
>> As for top posting. I see nothing wrong with it either. Just because it
>> wasn't the norm in the past doesn't mean it can't change
>
> Top posting, as well as not snipping the parts that are no longer needed
> is indeed a method of the new, uninformed users.
>
> Imagine people reading usenet like you do a book - it starts at the top,
> progresses down the page, with new content at the bottom. At least in
> most English based groups.
>
> You don't have to like it, but if you are going to use something
> properly then you should follow the basic directions. If you have no
> intention of following the directions then don't complain when others
> point it out to you - or stop using something you don't intend on using
> properly.
>
> Not only wasn't it the norm in the past, it's not the norm now.

Are you a netcop? Who cares if someone top or bottom posts. The problem
should be with one's inability to read. I simply reply in kind, and neither
format matters to me!
Anonymous
June 30, 2004 1:52:30 AM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.p2p,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web (More info?)

In article <OF4$mEiXEHA.3716@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>,
hilarykarp@comcast.nospam.net says...
>
> Lol..what bullshit. Some of the most experienced and informed users top
> post. What a self righteous idiot.

Think what you like, but having many people doing it doesn't change the
fact that it does not follow the standard and norms. I don't really care
if "Experienced" or "Informed" users top post, since the early 80's the
accepted practice has been to bottom post and snip properly.

Top posters generally don't snip and are usually too full of their own
self importance to follow the accepted practices on Usenet.

--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)
Anonymous
June 30, 2004 1:56:11 AM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.p2p,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web (More info?)

In article <eb849f2792922119eec907ff6b70b7c6@news.teranews.com>,
billly@yahoooo.net says...
> Are you a netcop? Who cares if someone top or bottom posts. The problem
> should be with one's inability to read. I simply reply in kind, and neither
> format matters to me!

So, what are you saying, that people posting in a manner that is not
consistent with the norm should not be informed of it? Are you saying
that anyone on usenet should stand back and watch as the tried and true
standard, while still working perfectly, is changed by people to lazy to
take the time to properly post?

Many people do reply by following the format used by the first reply,
but, others tend to top post no matter what form is being used.

Top posters generally don't snip and are usually too full of their own
self importance to follow the accepted practices on Usenet.

--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)
Anonymous
June 30, 2004 2:35:38 AM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.p2p,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web (More info?)

In article <uYMYLeiXEHA.3476@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>, fake@nowhere.org
says...
>
> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1b4ba43db2629b8598a6e0@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> > In article <40e1b47c$0$292$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com>, Jess127
> > @hotmail.con says...
> > > As for top posting. I see nothing wrong with it either. Just because it
> > > wasn't the norm in the past doesn't mean it can't change
> >
> > Top posting, as well as not snipping the parts that are no longer needed
> > is indeed a method of the new, uninformed users.
>
> I'll put it down here, just to make you happy, although I prefer and most
> often top post. New, and uninformed. Well, the first operating system I
> played with was DOS 1.25 (a). I even managed to to get a 10 meg hard drive
> going with that system. Before that of course I had the "play" computers,
> both Timex Sinclair and the Radio Shack version. At college we had the main
> frame, which we accessed via IBM punch cards. I could probably still
> program in COBOL if I had to.
>
> Again, it's a matter of choice. Top post or bottom post as you prefer.

I'm not trying to start a flame fest, I was hoping this would just be a
simple discussion and not lead to anything other than simple
conversation.

I've been working with systems since the 70's and started when we had to
write your own boot-strap loader, COBOL was the 4th language I learned.
I've been on Usenet since the early 80's and have seen it grow in size,
remain mostly the same, and seen "users" try to change it.

You are correct, it's a matter of choice, as many things are, but, there
is an accepted norm for Usenet, it's in all the guidelines for Usenet,
and it's also the easiest way to follow a thread.

If a post is only going to get one reply, a simple one liner, and no
additional replies, then I would agree that a top-post and snipping all
the remaining would be practical.

--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)
Anonymous
June 30, 2004 4:16:39 AM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.p2p,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web (More info?)

In article <genEc.1695$876.1530@fed1read07>, slipslide@pop.not says...
> If top posting is not acceptable, why is it the default method when you
> click on reply to group??? I prefer to read a top posted message response. I
> have already read the rest of the thread. Why wade through it again just to
> see what one poster has to say?

It's not the default on any real Usenet reader. All of the ones I've
used (non-MS ones) start at the bottom by default.

You don't have to wade through anything if you [snip] the parts that are
not needed in the reply.

X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409

shows that you posted via OE, which is not a news reader, it's a email
client that had the ability to read news added to it - and as usual, it
was setup and designed for mail only.

Get something like Gravity or other quality news readers and you'll be a
lot happier.


--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)
Anonymous
June 30, 2004 4:18:50 AM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.p2p,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web (More info?)

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 16:45:08 +0100, Mat spoketh

>Erm, so ashamedly attempting to get seek advice on my original query...
>

You'll probably find the answer in your ZA log file...

Lars M. Hansen
www.hansenonline.net
Remove "bad" from my e-mail address to contact me.
"If you try to fail, and succeed, which have you done?"
Anonymous
June 30, 2004 1:09:08 PM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.p2p,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web (More info?)

"Demure Guise" <no@reply.please.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cbseku$t0m$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> > I wasn't referring to 2 sentences. I was referring to dozens of posting
> you
> > find on here day in day out, but if the cap fits......
>
> What are you talking about?
>
I guess you would have to read the posting to figure that out.
Anonymous
June 30, 2004 1:28:26 PM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.p2p,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web (More info?)

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b4bd1f5f18ac57998a6e7@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> In article <genEc.1695$876.1530@fed1read07>, slipslide@pop.not says...
> > If top posting is not acceptable, why is it the default method when you
> > click on reply to group??? I prefer to read a top posted message
response. I
> > have already read the rest of the thread. Why wade through it again just
to
> > see what one poster has to say?
>
> It's not the default on any real Usenet reader. All of the ones I've
> used (non-MS ones) start at the bottom by default.
>
> You don't have to wade through anything if you [snip] the parts that are
> not needed in the reply.
>
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409
>
> shows that you posted via OE, which is not a news reader, it's a email
> client that had the ability to read news added to it - and as usual, it
> was setup and designed for mail only.
>
> Get something like Gravity or other quality news readers and you'll be a
> lot happier.
>
>
> --
> --
> spamfree999@rrohio.com
> (Remove 999 to reply to me)

I would imagine 90% of those reading from Usenet do it with Outlook Express.

It amazes me that you can find a nasty abusive postings, and no body
comments, but if you post at the top it is treated like a sin worse than
murder.
Anonymous
June 30, 2004 1:36:53 PM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.p2p,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web (More info?)

> > > I wasn't referring to 2 sentences. I was referring to dozens of
posting
> > you
> > > find on here day in day out, but if the cap fits......
> >
> > What are you talking about?
> >
> I guess you would have to read the posting to figure that out.
>
Well, we'll go through it one at a time. 'dozens of postings', with the 's'
on the end of dozen, you refer to more than one dozen and as there is 12 in
a dozen that means you are talking about at least 24 postings about Kazaa
day in day out.

I sorry but I don't see at least 24 postings about kazaa day in day out. Of
course I'm excluding this current posting subject, cos I'm talking to an
idiot.
Anonymous
June 30, 2004 2:05:06 PM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.p2p,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web (More info?)

"Demure Guise" <no@reply.please.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cbtto2$em3$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> > > > I wasn't referring to 2 sentences. I was referring to dozens of
> posting
> > > you
> > > > find on here day in day out, but if the cap fits......
> > >
> > > What are you talking about?
> > >
> > I guess you would have to read the posting to figure that out.
> >
> Well, we'll go through it one at a time. 'dozens of postings', with the
's'
> on the end of dozen, you refer to more than one dozen and as there is 12
in
> a dozen that means you are talking about at least 24 postings about Kazaa
> day in day out.
>
> I sorry but I don't see at least 24 postings about kazaa day in day out.
Of
> course I'm excluding this current posting subject, cos I'm talking to an
> idiot.
>
>
Now he is calling me an idiot. He will be swearing next, or worse such as
posting at the top!

Special note to "Demure Guise" Don't try and understand the above comment as
it is clearly beyond your comprehension.
Anonymous
June 30, 2004 2:40:41 PM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.p2p,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web (More info?)

Hello

Why would you want Kaaza on your pc any it's just full
of spy-ware

Mat wrote:

> Greetings
>
> I've just got a new laptop running XP and have installed the old version of
> Kazaa Lite that I was running with no problems (connection or otherwise) on
> my old Win98 system. When I try to open Kazaa Lite I get the 'connecting...'
> notification in the bottom of the screen but it never connects. I have
> turned off the XP internal firewall as I am using ZoneAlarm firewall and am
> not sure if it this that is affecting it, although it didn't on my Win98
> machine.
>
> Any ideas?
>
> Many thanks
>
> Mat
Anonymous
June 30, 2004 7:28:44 PM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.p2p,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web (More info?)

> Now he is calling me an idiot. He will be swearing next, or worse such as
> posting at the top!
>
> Special note to "Demure Guise" Don't try and understand the above comment
as
> it is clearly beyond your comprehension.

Erm, that's the second time I've called you an idiot. BTW I don't swear
'willy-nilly', my alias should have give you a clue to that. Oh, I'm sorry,
you didn't realise that 'demure' and 'guise' were two English words. Look
them up, pretty boy
July 1, 2004 7:17:06 AM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.p2p,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web (More info?)

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 17:19:24 -0500, "Jone Doe" <fake@nowhere.org>
said:
>
>I'll put it down here, just to make you happy, although I prefer and most
>often top post. New, and uninformed. Well, the first operating system I
>played with was<snip stuff>

Yet you still don't know how to use Usenet.

[shrug]

--
Mojo.
Anonymous
July 1, 2004 12:31:46 PM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.p2p,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web (More info?)

"Demure Guise" <no@reply.please.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cbuibo$dqq$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> > Now he is calling me an idiot. He will be swearing next, or worse such
as
> > posting at the top!
> >
> > Special note to "Demure Guise" Don't try and understand the above
comment
> as
> > it is clearly beyond your comprehension.
>
> Erm, that's the second time I've called you an idiot.
> BTW I don't swear
> 'willy-nilly', my alias should have give you a clue to that. Oh, I'm
sorry,
> you didn't realise that 'demure' and 'guise' were two English words. Look
> them up, pretty boy
>
>
Pretty boy?? How many boys do you know called Jessica?

Actually, both 'demure' and 'guise' are French words adopted into the
English language.

I subscribed to alt.internet.p2p in the hope I would learn something about
developments in the subject for my research. I have read a lot of rubbish,
fallen in a week moment into this petty exchange with you, and learned
nothing, so as soon as this reply has been sent I will remove the group from
my computer.

You will have to find someone else to be rude to.
Anonymous
July 1, 2004 6:59:47 PM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.p2p,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web (More info?)

Jone Doe wrote:

> Bottom posting is proper because YOU say so? I think not. Top posting is
> the only way to go. No, that's wrong. It's one of many ways to go, and a
> matter of personal choice.


Bottom posting is the way top go because that is what the RFC on
nettiquette specifies.
Anonymous
July 1, 2004 9:44:29 PM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.p2p,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web (More info?)

> Pretty boy?? How many boys do you know called Jessica?

'pretty boy' is just a saying. Actually my neice is called Jessica

> Actually, both 'demure' and 'guise' are French words adopted into the
> English language.

A lot of english words were adopted from other languages, but still they are
in the english dictionary

> I subscribed to alt.internet.p2p in the hope I would learn something about
> developments in the subject for my research. I have read a lot of rubbish,
> fallen in a week moment into this petty exchange with you, and learned
> nothing, so as soon as this reply has been sent I will remove the group
from
> my computer.

Good luck in your research

> You will have to find someone else to be rude to.

So sorry !!
Anonymous
August 2, 2004 8:45:21 PM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.p2p,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web (More info?)

I just tried WinMX and found no advantages over Kazaa lite.
Anonymous
August 2, 2004 8:54:56 PM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.p2p,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web (More info?)

Alvin Brown rambled on in microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:


Not kazaa lite.
> Hello
>
> Why would you want Kaaza on your pc any it's just full
> of spy-ware
>
Not kazaa lite.
Anonymous
August 2, 2004 8:56:44 PM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.p2p,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web (More info?)

T. Sean Weintz rambled on in microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:

You don't say?
>
> Bottom posting is the way top go because that is what the RFC on
> nettiquette specifies.
>

You don't say?
!