Images of the abandoned

In article , Sandman
wrote:

Eric Stevens:
The failure on the first test may also explain why some people
experience difficulty in connecting.

nospam:
it's something at his end. the only person to have an issue was
him.

And what makes *you* KNOW that?

He was the only one to claim it didn't work.

You DO know that a lot of folks would just move on and not comment
if they cannot get the commection - much like they do when they DO
get the URL.

Cool, but until we know of any such people, that's just pure speculation,
is it not?

and if those people existed, the problem would also be at their end.

a useful resource:
http://www.downforeveryoneorjustme.com/

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I am sure that even you (nospam) will have to admit that the two
tracert's followed entirely different routes. How a link would pass on
from Tinyurl to distractify is anyone's guess but it almost certainly
wouldn't be the same as for an ordinary user attempting to make the
connection directly.

that's a bad assumption because the internet is designed to re-route
automatically.

Yes, and by using TinyURL I forced it to use an an entirely different
route. Even you will have to recognise that.

you didn't force it to do anything.

Oh, so all the name and address servers in the Internet pay no
attention to the URL typed in on somebody's browser. You really are a
fool.

i never said any such thing. stop twisting things.

The failure on the first test may also explain
why some people experience difficulty in connecting.

it's something at his end. the only person to have an issue was him.

The only person in the whole world-wide world!

i did't say the only person in the whole world-wide world. stop lying
about what i say.

You did say "the only person". You didn't limit this person's
membership to a particular subset of humanity.

more of your idiotic word games.

Dear dear.

He's the only person to have expressed his difficulty in you presence.

and likely the only person in his area who even tried.

Now how on earth could you know?

because usenet is not very popular, so there's an exceptionally high
likelihood that nobody in his area reads it.

the problem was at his end. this is not up for debate.

Not with you, certainly.

you really don't get it, do you?

the site was not down. it was reachable for everyone, except for him.
therefore, there was an issue at his end.

if it was further upstream, then it would have affected more people,
and it didn't.

There is every reason to expect that he may have encountered a problem
similar to that shown in the Trace Route report.

no. what likely happened is that his isp had dns issues. it happens.

Yes, and it can happen anywhere along the route. That's why I
suggested TinyURL, to make him use an entirely different route.

tinyurl does not guarantee a different route.

it doesn't guarantee anything other than a database lookup of a code to
a full url because people use ****ty software that can't handle full
urls.

On Thu, 09 Oct 2014 04:08:45 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I am sure that even you (nospam) will have to admit that the two
tracert's followed entirely different routes. How a link would pass on
from Tinyurl to distractify is anyone's guess but it almost certainly
wouldn't be the same as for an ordinary user attempting to make the
connection directly.

that's a bad assumption because the internet is designed to re-route
automatically.

Yes, and by using TinyURL I forced it to use an an entirely different
route. Even you will have to recognise that.

you didn't force it to do anything.

Oh, so all the name and address servers in the Internet pay no
attention to the URL typed in on somebody's browser. You really are a
fool.

i never said any such thing. stop twisting things.

The failure on the first test may also explain
why some people experience difficulty in connecting.

it's something at his end. the only person to have an issue was him.

The only person in the whole world-wide world!

i did't say the only person in the whole world-wide world. stop lying
about what i say.

You did say "the only person". You didn't limit this person's
membership to a particular subset of humanity.

more of your idiotic word games.

Dear dear.

He's the only person to have expressed his difficulty in you presence.

and likely the only person in his area who even tried.

Now how on earth could you know?

because usenet is not very popular, so there's an exceptionally high
likelihood that nobody in his area reads it.

the problem was at his end. this is not up for debate.

Not with you, certainly.

you really don't get it, do you?

the site was not down. it was reachable for everyone, except for him.
therefore, there was an issue at his end.

if it was further upstream, then it would have affected more people,
and it didn't.

There is every reason to expect that he may have encountered a problem
similar to that shown in the Trace Route report.

no. what likely happened is that his isp had dns issues. it happens.

Yes, and it can happen anywhere along the route. That's why I
suggested TinyURL, to make him use an entirely different route.

tinyurl does not guarantee a different route.

it doesn't guarantee anything other than a database lookup of a code to
a full url because people use ****ty software that can't handle full
urls.

See http://tinyurl.appappeal.com/

"When the shortened link is clicked, it is routed through the
TinyURL site to the original long link."

That's what I relied upon when suggesting TinyURL in the
hope/expectation that it would change the route and bypass whatever
was making connecting difficult. The results showed that I was not in
error. Nor do the two Trace Route reports show that I was in error.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

nospam:
tinyurl does not guarantee a different route.

it doesn't guarantee anything other than a database lookup of a
code to a full url because people use ****ty software that can't
handle full urls.

See http://tinyurl.appappeal.com/

"When the shortened link is clicked, it is routed through the
TinyURL site to the original long link."

No it isn't. It is redirected to the original link, not "routed through".

That's what I relied upon when suggesting TinyURL in the
hope/expectation that it would change the route and bypass whatever
was making connecting difficult.

Then you relied incorrectly.

The results showed that I was not in error.

Incorrect, you are in error.

Nor do the two Trace Route reports show that I was in
error.

The two trace routes does not show you anything other than the route being
different to two different web sites, which was obvious to begin with.

The web browser still uses the route to the original long url when
visiting it. With tinyurl you are making the web browser take two routes
seperately, not one alternate route.

Again, stop talking about things you do not understand.


--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Yes, and it can happen anywhere along the route. That's why I
suggested TinyURL, to make him use an entirely different route.

tinyurl does not guarantee a different route.

it doesn't guarantee anything other than a database lookup of a code to
a full url because people use ****ty software that can't handle full
urls.

See http://tinyurl.appappeal.com/

"When the shortened link is clicked, it is routed through the
TinyURL site to the original long link."

but not when the actual site itself is loaded.

That's what I relied upon when suggesting TinyURL in the
hope/expectation that it would change the route and bypass whatever
was making connecting difficult. The results showed that I was not in
error. Nor do the two Trace Route reports show that I was in error.

your error is not understanding what it is you're looking at.

On Sat, 11 Oct 2014 00:17:53 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Yes, and it can happen anywhere along the route. That's why I
suggested TinyURL, to make him use an entirely different route.

tinyurl does not guarantee a different route.

it doesn't guarantee anything other than a database lookup of a code to
a full url because people use ****ty software that can't handle full
urls.

See http://tinyurl.appappeal.com/

"When the shortened link is clicked, it is routed through the
TinyURL site to the original long link."

but not when the actual site itself is loaded.

That's what I relied upon when suggesting TinyURL in the
hope/expectation that it would change the route and bypass whatever
was making connecting difficult. The results showed that I was not in
error. Nor do the two Trace Route reports show that I was in error.

your error is not understanding what it is you're looking at.

And yours is not explaining why you think I am wrong. Your staandard
method of pronouncing that I m not in error is useless. For what it
is worth I have over several days gathered a collection of path
statements from my home address, for distractify, TinyURL and
Eklundh.com, each of which is different from one day to next. They
very well illustrate that there is no such thing but a single path
from one user to another on the Internet. But then I thought you would
have known that.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

nospam:
your error is not understanding what it is you're looking at.

And yours is not explaining why you think I am wrong. Your staandard
method of pronouncing that I m not in error is useless. For what it
is worth I have over several days gathered a collection of path
statements from my home address, for distractify, TinyURL and
Eklundh.com, each of which is different from one day to next. They
very well illustrate that there is no such thing but a single path
from one user to another on the Internet. But then I thought you
would have known that.

Trace routes change over time, obviously, but adding an access to tinyurl
does NOT change your current route to site X.

--
Sandman[.net]