Is the party over?

[Roy Hann]

I know Usenet has been pretty effectively hobbled if not completely
killed off, but the conversations/squabbles that used to get
aired here on c.d.t. must still go on somewhere.

Where?

--
Roy

[Gene Wirchenko]

No, not killed off. My ISP dropped USENET, so I am using
eternal-september.org now for my USENET access. I still follow
USENET. I do not know where the former cdt'ers are posting. I do
subscribe to The Third Manifesto list. The subscription address is
<ttm-su...@thethirdmanifesto.com>

>Where?

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[Eric]

I have no idea where. But let's see how many people still look here
from time to time - if you are reading this, say hi. Then how about
somebody asks a question, or says something controversial (on-topic,
of course). As long as there are servers that will accept users (free
or paid), USENET is still alive, whereas any other forum exists at
the whim of its owner.

Eric
--
ms fnd in a lbry

[James K. Lowden]

On Tue, 3 Apr 2012 19:49:32 +0100
Eric <er...@deptj.eu> wrote:

> if you are reading this, say hi

Hi.

I'd say c.d.t isn't the hotbed of controversy it once was because it's
at least two generations behind the fad curve. XML is old hat; graph
databases are the next old wine in new bottles. Here's to hoping
Satayana was right, and that the current devolutionists will
rediscover relational theory when they get tired of reinventing it,
poorly.

I must say, though, I do wish I had nickle every time someone told me,
out there in the real world, that they "just" need <something> that
doesn't require a relational database (if only they knew). Funny how
willing people are to write programs instead of learning how not to.

--jkl

[Bob Badour]

Hi

[Roy Hann]

Gene Wirchenko wrote:

> I am using eternal-september.org

I'm using aioe.org.

--
Roy

[paul c]

On 04/04/2012 12:29 AM, Roy Hann wrote:
> Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>
>> I am using eternal-september.org
>
> I'm using aioe.org.
>

thanks for those names.

[Erwin]

On Tuesday, April 3, 2012 8:49:32 PM UTC+2, Eric wrote:

>
> I have no idea where. But let's see how many people still look here
> from time to time - if you are reading this, say hi. Then how about
> somebody asks a question, or says something controversial (on-topic,
> of course). As long as there are servers that will accept users (free
> or paid), USENET is still alive, whereas any other forum exists at
> the whim of its owner.
>
> Eric
> --
> ms fnd in a lbry

Hi.

[robur.6 6]

On Apr 3, 9:49 pm, Eric <e...@deptj.eu> wrote:

I think there are many people that do not post, but are still watching
this group. Though if you know other similar non-Usenet groups, please
share.

[com...@hotmail.com]

hi all.
google groups.
philip

[Roy Hann]

com...@hotmail.com wrote:

> hi all.
> google groups.

I take it you mean that Google Groups mirrors the c.d.t Usenet group
(presumably for the benefit of those who cannot access NNTP), not that
there are other fora there which have taken over from c.d.t?

Obviously I can't come here and expect an answer from exactly the people
who aren't here, but the indications seem to be that the conversation
has just stopped. Did you really figure it all out?

I didn't. :-(

--
Roy

[Eric]

On 2012-04-03, Roy Hann <spec...@processed.almost.meat> wrote:

One week, 9 different contributors to this thread, not very good. But
there are groups that are still quite active and interesting, so why not
this one? To be honest I think that theory is currently unfashionable,
as are taking a long-term view and trying to do things right! However,
there are things that are acting to keep the Usenet infrastructure alive
(i.e. keeping enough servers running), I don't see either "hobbled" or
"killed off".

On the other hand I'm not sure that the conversations/squabbles _do_
still go on anywhere.

[Roy Hann]

Eric wrote:

> I don't see either "hobbled" or
> "killed off".

Well Usenet would probably be valued by only a tiny number of users
today, no matter what, but New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo's
action in 2008 (which was intended to curb access to illegal material
distributed via NNTP) certainly did hobble it.

Many of the big service providers decided that rather than go to the
trouble to comply with his actual request the easiest way to protect
themselves was to make the problem "go away" by entirely shutting down
customers' access to Usenet.

But getting back to the point: although I like Usenet I'm not overly
concerned with how the discussion is hosted or relayed. I want to know
if it is going on anywhere at all. Sadly you seem to think it isn't. I
can't disagree with you based on the feedback here.

--
Roy

[Gene Wirchenko]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 20:18:31 +0100, Eric <er...@deptj.eu> wrote:

[snip]

>On the other hand I'm not sure that the conversations/squabbles _do_
>still go on anywhere.

They do. There is The Third Manifesto list:
List-Post: <mailto:t...@thethirdmanifesto.com>
List-Help: <mailto:ttm-...@thethirdmanifesto.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ttm-uns...@thethirdmanifesto.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:ttm-su...@thethirdmanifesto.com>

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[Troels Arvin]

Eric wrote:
> if you are reading this, say hi.

Hi.

--
Troels Arvin

[Sampo Syreeni]

I see two directions, technology-wise. Either we go to the old tech,
which is some combination of IRC and mailing lists. Or we go with the
newer tech, which is a group or some simulacrum of it, using either
Facebook or Google Plus.

Personally I'd advocate for a traditional mailing list, perhaps with a
simultaneous IRC group, both of which are logged/retained. Because no
other medium besides a mailing group admits such long posts and
analytic interaction as Usenet/Netnews does. At the same time, we're
already used to a level of interactivity, which is hard to come by
unless we utilize something like IRC on the side; the modern web-based
social media aren't conducive to rational discussion.

Google Groups hosted mailing lists might just provide a middle ground
solution. They're fast enough to support dialogue, they support email-
only interaction like Netnews, but then there's the archival issue: we
don't want our discussions to just go down the drain when the group
administrator suddenly decides to retire.

I know I'm speaking as somebody who hasn't spoken in a long while. But
I'm also speaking as somebody well-versed and highly interested in
preservation, and someone who's been using both the older and the
newer means of online discussion tech for a while now. From my
viewpoint the best thing which could happen would be if we had full-
function gateways between Usenet, IRC, a Google backed mailing list,
and perhaps even a G+ Circle. But since that has never happened before
to my knowledge, even on fora which were already divided between web
boards and mailing lists, and in a similar pinch otherwise...

I'd advocate going to a public mailing list, even if it's old tech.
Perhaps as an interim measure, but still. Preserving everybody''s
(Google's as well) archives of the group, merging them to a single
comprehensive archive, distributing that archive back to multiple
people (I'd be more than willing to carry one of the copies), then
migrating the discussion elsewhere, and finally after a period of time
gracefully shutting the Usenet group down altogether.

[Gene Wirchenko]

On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:08:13 -0700 (PDT), Sampo Syreeni <de...@iki.fi>
wrote:

>On Apr 3, 11:49 am, Roy Hann <specia...@processed.almost.meat> wrote:
>> I know Usenet has been pretty effectively hobbled if not completely
>> killed off, but the conversations/squabbles that used to get
>> aired here on c.d.t. must still go on somewhere.
>>
>> Where?

>I see two directions, technology-wise. Either we go to the old tech,
>which is some combination of IRC and mailing lists. Or we go with the
>newer tech, which is a group or some simulacrum of it, using either
>Facebook or Google Plus.

I go for USENET. I subscribe to The Third Manifesto list, and
one nasty problem with it is no threading which can make it difficult
to follow a discussion that has broken up into subthreads. Subthreads
are easily handled with my newsreader software.

Like ALGOL, USENET is a great improvement over many of its
successors.

[snip]

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[Eric]

On 2012-04-16, Sampo Syreeni <de...@iki.fi> wrote:

> On Apr 3, 11:49?am, Roy Hann <specia...@processed.almost.meat> wrote:
>> I know Usenet has been pretty effectively hobbled if not completely
>> killed off, but the conversations/squabbles that used to get
>> aired here on c.d.t. must still go on somewhere.
>>
>> Where?
>> --
>> Roy
>
> I see two directions, technology-wise. Either we go to the old tech,
> which is some combination of IRC and mailing lists. Or we go with the
> newer tech, which is a group or some simulacrum of it, using either
> Facebook or Google Plus.

<snip to save space>

> I'd advocate going to a public mailing list, even if it's old tech.
> Perhaps as an interim measure, but still. Preserving everybody''s
> (Google's as well) archives of the group, merging them to a single
> comprehensive archive, distributing that archive back to multiple
> people (I'd be more than willing to carry one of the copies), then
> migrating the discussion elsewhere, and finally after a period of time
> gracefully shutting the Usenet group down altogether.

Anything you may want to set up is at the mercy of a change of mind
from an owner and a hosting organisation. How often are you prepared to
start all over again? What if the owner starts excluding people? Who
looks after the archive updates, and how many copies are enough? Is
it really worth all this for just this group? And if it is all set
up can you guarantee that any more people will want to use it than
are here now?

Actually, the question was "Where did the conversations go?", not
"Where should the conversations go?", and the only answers we have
had to that are the TTM mailing list and nowhere. The former is a
bit too specialised, and the latter unhelpful, even if true.

[David BL]

On Apr 4, 2:49 am, Eric <e...@deptj.eu> wrote:

> Then how about somebody asks a question, or says something controversial
> (on-topic, of course).

That what VIPs (Vociferous Ignorant Persons) are good for.

[VTR250]

Hi,

This is not one of my core Usenet forums, so I haven't picked up on this post for a week. I don't think the conversations have gone anywhere. Some tech queries might be put out to Oracle groups like 'Ask Tom' or 'Stack Overflow' etc.

I think Usenet has been harmed by Google a bit because Google Reader doesn't handle threads like a real news reader.

Next time I post a question/answer I will make a reference to helpful information I got from Usenet (YOU!). Perhaps this will alert some people to Usenet. Perhaps you might try this too?

[Frank Hamersley]

On 16/05/2012 10:26 AM, VTR250 wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 3, 2012 6:49:03 PM UTC+10, Roy Hann wrote:
>> I know Usenet has been pretty effectively hobbled if not completely
>> killed off, but the conversations/squabbles that used to get
>> aired here on c.d.t. must still go on somewhere.
>>
>> Where?

Perhaps the twaddleverse or been bloggered!

>> Roy
>
> Hi,

G'day - to just the usual suspects it seems ... barely enough for an
(admissable) line up ... and I guess not a Gen Y/Millenial within cooee?

> This is not one of my core Usenet forums, so I haven't picked up on this post for a week.

... or more than several months in my case. Times are changing it seems.

Cheers, Frank.

[Martin Michael Musatov]

On May 17, 8:08 am, Frank Hamersley <terabitemigh...@bigpond.com>
wrote:

> On 16/05/2012 10:26 AM, VTR250 wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, April 3, 2012 6:49:03 PM UTC+10, Roy Hann wrote:
> >> I know Usenet has been pretty effectively hobbled if not completely
> >> killed off, but the conversations/squabbles that used to get
> >> aired here on c.d.t. must still go on somewhere.
>
> >> Where?

following a ? Is an inquiry>

[Martin Michael Musatov]

What is another way to write one and zero? One and zero are also
written as 1 and 0. This is helpful information from Usenet
(Musatov!).

[Martin Michael Musatov]

On May 17, 8:08 am, Frank Hamersley <terabitemigh...@bigpond.com>
wrote:

> On 16/05/2012 10:26 AM, VTR250 wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, April 3, 2012 6:49:03 PM UTC+10, Roy Hann wrote:
> >> I know Usenet has been pretty effectively hobbled if not completely
> >> killed off, but the conversations/squabbles that used to get
> >> aired here on c.d.t. must still go on somewhere.
>
> >> Where?
>
> Perhaps the twaddleverse or been bloggered!
>
> >> Roy
>
> > Hi,
>
> G'day - to just the usual suspects it seems ... barely enough for an
> (admissable) line up ... and I guess not a Gen Y/Millenial within cooee?

I am a prime generalization.

>
> > This is not one of my core Usenet forums, so I haven't picked up on this post for a week.
>
> ... or more than several months in my case. Times are changing it seems.
>
> Cheers, Frank.

Musatov (Bemis) of implied meaning

[David Portas]

> Where?

dbforums.com maybe. Sadly the discussion in the "Concepts and Design" forum
only rarely gets more interesting than homework questions.

David