On May 14, 2:51 pm, Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote: > On May 14, 8:14 am,BradGuth<bradg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On May 13, 10:48 pm, Archimedes Plutonium > (snipped) > > > Nice enough topic, and you are right about the kinds of index methods > > of censorship that takes place, and otherwise notice how few if any > > K-12s are anywhere to be seen within these public Usenet/newsgroups. > > The fact that few if any High Schoolers post should be a alarm bell > for those who look after Usenet. When Usenet started, everyone was > shouting a banner of "freedom of speech", but there is little fairness > of speech in Usenet so long as anyone can hide behind fake names and > post almost unlimited volume. When you have fake names-- BroilJAB, > HVAC, Kevin, Bacle and more than 5 posts per 24 hours by such dolts, > then the Usenet science newsgroups are tarnished so much that a High > School youngster would not feel comfortable in posting. > > So that if those two rules were installed-- no fake names, only 5 > posts per day we would see a science forum. > > > They'll also connect your words together so as to making them a whole > > lot less searchable, and they've done the same thing with external > > links by connecting the prior word to that link and thereby making it > > unfunctional. So, there are ways of messing up your topics and > > Worse yet is this Docendi.org or Niuz.biz that collects my posts and > then when a bystander opens up that post in Niuz, Niuz attaches > malware to the bystanders computer, at least that is what the Google > warnings say about Niuz. I still want a lawyer to sue Niuz > for wrecking computers, or the threat of wrecking computers. > > > replies in ways that computer forensics can't link to the insider > > perpetrators that intend to make their own stuff stick and your stuff > > either fail or eventually vanish. > > > However, I do believe we're seeing more than 400 million ly distance > > by way of extremely long time exposures and lots of computer PhotoShop- > > like methods applied. > > I am still looking to see if 400 million light years is the upper > limit. It appears so, since that Ring in the 3rd layer of Jarrett's > galaxy mapping is 400 m l y distance. It is not final, but a good > rough guess. > > AP
There's no requirement that K12s or anyone else has to read/review through each and every Usenet/newsgroup topic or reply, however with the usual gauntlet of reuse-masters and FUD-masters clowning around, it's a wonder that anyone seriously bothers with the public free- speech context of Usenet where topic/author stalking and bashing is mainstream status-quo (meaning unpoliced by most of their kind), imposing their mainstream damage control that would make Hitler a very proud and happy camper, because the only ones actively looking after Usenet are those of the ZNR oligarch kind.
Your interpretation that 400 million light years is the optical limit of seeing other more distant stuff is perhaps not taking into account those extremely long time exposures of extremely sensitive CCDs gathering photons and thousands of frame stacking methods applied.