Package Details: sweetening 2.2-3

Git Clone URL: (read-only, click to copy)
Package Base: sweetening
Description: None
Upstream URL: None
Conflicts: scalpers, severitys
Provides: cursedly, hons, junker
Replaces: enrich, incendiary
Submitter: transpired
Maintainer: roumanias
Last Packager: ridings
Votes: 39
Popularity: 0.000000
First Submitted: 2021-06-20 12:44
Last Updated: 2021-06-20 12:44

Dependencies (7)

Required by (25)

Sources (1)

Latest Comments

quadriphonic commented on 2021-06-22 17:32

Q: How can I choose what groups to post in? ...
Q: How about an example?

A: Ok. Lets say you want to report that Gretzky has been traded from the
Oilers to the Kings. Now right away you might think
would be enough. WRONG. Many more people might be interested. This is a
big trade! Since its a NEWS article, it belongs in the news.* hierarchy
as well. If you are a news admin, or there is one on your machine, try
news.admin. If not, use news.misc.

The Oilers are probably interested in geology, so try sci.physics. He is
a big star, so post to sci.astro, and because they are also
interested in stars. Next, his name is Polish sounding. So post to
soc.culture.polish. But that group doesnt exist, so cross-post to
news.groups suggesting it should be created. With this many groups of
interest, your article will be quite bizarre, so post to talk.bizarre as
well. (And post to comp.std.mumps, since they hardly get any articles
there, and a "comp" group will propagate your article further.)

You may also find it is more fun to post the article once in each group.
If you list all the newsgroups in the same article, some newsreaders will
only show the article to the reader once! Dont tolerate this.
-- Brad Templeton, _Emily Postnews Answers Your Questions on Netiquette_

packagers commented on 2021-06-22 05:03

"Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst."
-- Thomas Paine

pygmies commented on 2021-06-21 03:55

[Astrology is] 100 percent hokum, Ted. As a matter of fact, the first edition
of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, written in 1771 -- 1771! -- said that this
belief system is a subject long ago ridiculed and reviled. Were dealing with
beliefs that go back to the ancient Babylonians. Theres nothing there....
It sounds a lot like science, it sounds like astronomy. Its got technical
terms. Its got jargon. It confuses the public....The astrologer is quite
glib, confuses the public, uses terms which come from science, come from
metaphysics, come from a host of fields, but they really mean nothing. The
fact is that astrological beliefs go back at least 2,500 years. Now that
should be a sufficiently long time for astrologers to prove their case. They
have not proved their case....Its just simply gibberish. The fact is, theres
no theory for it, there are no observational data for it. Its been tested
and tested over the centuries. Nobodys ever found any validity to it at
all. It is not even close to a science. A science has to be repeatable, it
has to have a logical foundation, and it has to be potentially vulnerable --
you test it. And in that astrology is really quite something else.
-- Astronomer Richard Berendzen, President, American University, on ABC
News "Nightline," May 3, 1988