Gone to the Dogs
David
David
Melissa
"David" <drn...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:7KidnXa58aBpAmLb...@comcast.com...
> Has this newsgroup gone to the dogs (spammers) or what?
>
> David
>
>
Yes. Lately it's nothing but cigarette spammers.
Melissa
clams casino
and chinese shoewear plus bestfreebies spam.
If you filter out all bellsouth & google groups postings, however, it's
not too bad.
hen...@sohu.com
clams casino
>http://blogspot
>
>
>
The irony of it all.
Anthony Matonak
> Has this newsgroup gone to the dogs (spammers) or what?
All the off-topic posts about how many off-topic (spam)
posts there are don't help. Lobby your local politicians
to make it illegal to spam or to enforce the laws that
may already exist.
Anthony
Al Bundy
I feel like it's pretty hopeless. You can't have free speech and then
try to limit those saying what you don't like. Several of the groups I
look at have been ruined by spam, gay and porno posts, or political/
religious zealots. A few technical groups still provide useful
information and I hope at least that continues. I think we have to
work around it best we can. Perhaps getting rid if the true spammers
will give some breathing room. Not responding to those who simply want
to engage a response of any kind might cause them to drop out.
Melissa
"Anthony Matonak" <antho...@nothing.like.socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:46ffb806$0$18929$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
Yes, my local Ohio politicians hold a lot of sway over Nigeria and China.
Melissa
larry
> Has this newsgroup gone to the dogs (spammers) or what?
>
> David
>
>
If you are using a newsreader (xnews, freeagent, etc) set
crosspost filter to 3 and most of it dissappears, add your
favorite pests (larry, iphone ;-) to headers, subject
contains and the 100 posts per day drops to 25.
running everything thru spamassassin would be the ultimate,
but just haven't gotten a round tuit yet.
-larry / dallas
Michael Black
> On Sep 30, 11:51 am, Anthony Matonak
> <anthony...@nothing.like.socal.rr.com> wrote:
>> David wrote:
>> > Has this newsgroup gone to the dogs (spammers) or what?
>>
>> All the off-topic posts about how many off-topic (spam)
>> posts there are don't help. Lobby your local politicians
>> to make it illegal to spam or to enforce the laws that
>> may already exist.
>>
>> Anthony
>
> I feel like it's pretty hopeless. You can't have free speech and then
> try to limit those saying what you don't like.
But there's your problem right there. It's not a "free speech" issue.
If I have something to say, that doesn't automatically give me
access to space in the local newspaper or on the local radio station.
I have to find some outlet that will carry my message, or publish it
myself.
"Free speech" comes out when certain thoughts are supressed. So if
what I have to say sends me to jail for saying it, then that's a Free
Speech issue.
Not being able to speak out in one forum does not mean I am prevented
from speaking at all.
We don't want the spam here, we don't want the drivel here. We aren't
saying they can speak elsewhere, even finding some soapbox somewhere
to deliver their Free Speech.
What people miss is that a strong group can fight the influx. But
when we let the trolls in, then it lets others follow with their
posts that really aren't frugal, even if they say "Frugal Expensive
Car Buying" in their subject header. We don't speak up when people
routinely cross-post between here and misc.consumers even if it has no
relevance here. We don't speek up when someone posts their jokes here, even
if it has no relevance. The less there is a cohesive group, the harder it
is to get behind the notion of keeping the junk out, because there is on
strong notion of what the group is supposed to be about.
At the very least, when there is a lot of on-topic posts, it dwarfs
the off-topic junk. If we look in the morning and all the new posts
from overnight are junk posts about "free stuff", then of course it
is far worse than when those posts are mixed in with a healthy dose
of real posts.
I would argue that some of the decline of a newsgroup is when it
becomes a hangout. People who want to be there even though they
aren't so interested in the topic of the newsgroup, or at least
feel because they share that interest they can post whatever
else they are interested in. They'd rather hang close to what
they know than venture out into newsgroups where the topics
belong but "they don't know anyone".
That then waters down the newsgroup, as they post all kinds of
off-topic stuff, baking questions for example that have nothing
to do with being frugal and belong in baking newsgroups. Newcomers
arrive, and they see that it's "acceptable" and post away too.
ANd eventually nobody is talking about the topic the newsgroup is
for.
Michael
Michael Black
has newcomers coming in, their involvement refreshes the group,
adding new viewpoints and challenging the oldtimers in their
thoughts. The more cluttered a newsgroup, the less likely
a newcomer will come in. And of course, all the junk sets
the standard, "well he posted about his business, so I was
quite certain it was allowed".
Michael
Chloe
news:fdom54$7q2$1...@theodyn.ncf.ca...
><snip>
> I would argue that some of the decline of a newsgroup is when it
> becomes a hangout. People who want to be there even though they
> aren't so interested in the topic of the newsgroup, or at least
> feel because they share that interest they can post whatever
> else they are interested in. They'd rather hang close to what
> they know than venture out into newsgroups where the topics
> belong but "they don't know anyone".
>
> That then waters down the newsgroup, as they post all kinds of
> off-topic stuff, baking questions for example that have nothing
> to do with being frugal and belong in baking newsgroups. Newcomers
> arrive, and they see that it's "acceptable" and post away too.
>
> ANd eventually nobody is talking about the topic the newsgroup is
> for.
This newsgroup went through that process years ago. Without fail, anyone who
mentioned the desirability of keeping posts on-topic was attacked and
ridiculed as a "netcop." I think I once offered up the example of someone
going into a sports bar while an important game was on and insisting that
everyone turn away from the TVs and discuss this season's newest ballets.
That'd of course be socially unacceptable behavior real-time, but apparently
never has been considered so here.
Fact is, I think Usenet has pretty much outlived its usefulness. I don't
like that--it was a cool thing in its day, but evolution marches on.
Anthony Matonak
>> to make it illegal to spam or to enforce the laws that
>> may already exist.
>
You probably aren't reading the newsgroup off a server in Nigeria
or China. Your local ISP could be much more aggressive in filtering
out messages from known spam countries. If China won't keep their
spammers in check then they shouldn't be surprised that they don't
get to post on usenet.
Anthony
Michael Black
term "net cop" is deliberate, it's to make the person trying to bring
some sort of order or whatever to a newsgroup feel bad.
I generally have tried to speak up when someone gets called that, by
the people who want their "free speech". It's not fair to let the
ones who speak up stand by themselves.
I was going through some old files, circa 1995, and I'd saved a post
of mine to some other newsgroup replying to someone who had called
someone else a "net nazi". I took him to task for using "nazi", which
tends to diminish the real damage the real ones did. I'd forgotten
about that post, but over the years that same poster has too often
acted like he can do as he pleases in newsgroups, and I've taken him
to task for that. It is interesting that to realize he is consistent.
Too many people leave a newsgroup, rather than fight. So all those
regular posters who posted for a long time here that are no longer here,
I suspect they got tired of something, and each time one left, it changed
the newsgroup an incremental amount. Add them all up, and you get the
current newsgroup.
I have left some newsgroups, not so much because of low traffic (I still
check some newsgroups that get a few posts over a few months, if that much),
not even because of spam. But when the core value of the newsgroup morphs,
and there seems to be no way of fighting it, the only solution seems to
be to leave. And it's an odd situation, because they are newsgroups I've
read for most of a decade, which leaves me often a longer term poster than
the people coming in who think it should be different.
Michael
Vic Smith
wrote:
>
>I have left some newsgroups, not so much because of low traffic (I still
>check some newsgroups that get a few posts over a few months, if that much),
>not even because of spam. But when the core value of the newsgroup morphs,
>and there seems to be no way of fighting it, the only solution seems to
>be to leave. And it's an odd situation, because they are newsgroups I've
>read for most of a decade, which leaves me often a longer term poster than
>the people coming in who think it should be different.
>
People come and go from newsgroups. I've never posted to a "low
volume" NG, but it's not surprising that one would abandon a low
volume group. There's probably a better net forum for the subject.
The spamming here is just a distraction, as is the OT stuff.
Nothing else has really changed, as far as I can tell.
Some old faces gone, new ones appearing.
Most of the trash is from google.com and best freebies.
It's easily ignored, and an on topic subject will find participants.
If a NG is of value, it only takes a small number of sincere
participants to keep it vital and draw others in.
--Vic
Dennis
wrote:
>But that doesn't address the problem. A healthy group always
>has newcomers coming in, their involvement refreshes the group,
>adding new viewpoints and challenging the oldtimers in their
>thoughts. The more cluttered a newsgroup, the less likely
>a newcomer will come in. And of course, all the junk sets
>the standard, "well he posted about his business, so I was
>quite certain it was allowed".
Fortunately we have you here to tirelessly set everyone straight on
what is and is not appropriate to post.
Dennis (evil)
--
"There is a fine line between participation and mockery" - Wally
Michael Black
> On 30 Sep 2007 17:27:50 GMT, et...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael Black)
> wrote:
>
>>But that doesn't address the problem. A healthy group always
>>has newcomers coming in, their involvement refreshes the group,
>>adding new viewpoints and challenging the oldtimers in their
>>thoughts. The more cluttered a newsgroup, the less likely
>>a newcomer will come in. And of course, all the junk sets
>>the standard, "well he posted about his business, so I was
>>quite certain it was allowed".
>
> Fortunately we have you here to tirelessly set everyone straight on
> what is and is not appropriate to post.
>
Where's the frugal discussion here?
"Where's a cheap ISP?" is hardly a frugal issue. It's a consumer
issue, and there's a newsgroup for that.
Real discussion of frugality is either gone, or barely here.
Frugality is more than getting things cheap. And as far as I'm concerned
it's far deeper than "should I buy a or b". The people who come
here to ask about where to get things cheap will likely never be
frugal, because they don't get it. If they need someone to lead
them to the best buy, then someone else can lead them to some completely
non-frugal thing. ANd they certainly will keep asking, like the
resident troll and that Vijay guy, because they think it stops
at "getting a good deal".
Being frugal is not about consuming, which all those posts basically
make it seem like.
It's about making decisions, like the woman who was frugal in her
life so she could go off and speed skate. It's about big decisions
like how do we live our lives and what's important to us, and it's about
small barely noticeable decisions like how we buy toothpaste. But
the process is far more important than handing someone an answer.
The people who come with their really large salaries and wonder
how they are in debt, they suffer because they don't have a frugal
mentality. But often it's clear that they "don't want to fuss
with all those decisions", so all the bad choices add up. ANd
they can't make the leap to being frugal because the focus is
on buying no name mustard instead of name brand mustard, when
the real process should be explained without any specific items.
"How do I bake bread?" is not a frugal issue. There are newsgroups
that cover the topic. I read them, and sometimes even post. Frugality
is about making the leap to doing things yourself, and making an
informed decision over whether there is value in doing a given thing
rather than spending money.
I read newsgroups for the topic they are supposed to be about. If
I want to discuss some other topic I go elsewhere. If I wanted a club,
I'd join one. If I wanted to hang out with people, I might as well
stay in the local newsgroup where it might even lead to hanging out
with real people.
But a newsgroup loses when it morphs into something else, and the people
who were there because of the topic of the newsgroup leave, because
then they aren't around when people ask questions that they can reply
to.
The people who post the most don't even notice, because they are really
quite happy with the state of the newsgroup. They don't care, because
the topic of the newsgroup is pretty irrelevant to them.
There is very little here. Take off your rose-colored glasses, and
even if you take out the "freebies" and the spam, you'll discover
that really very little addresses frugality. It's about buying cheap.
Micahel
hchi...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>Where's the frugal discussion here?
>
>"Where's a cheap ISP?" is hardly a frugal issue. It's a consumer
>issue, and there's a newsgroup for that.
>
>Real discussion of frugality is either gone, or barely here.
>
>Frugality is more than getting things cheap. And as far as I'm concerned
>it's far deeper than "should I buy a or b". The people who come
>here to ask about where to get things cheap will likely never be
>frugal, because they don't get it.
<massive snip>
OFPS. now we have spammers and whingers about the regulars who are
unfrugal in their rhetoric.
There outta be a newgroup for people like that, so they don't waste
bandwidth in other newsgroups.
larry
When I save money, that's frugal. And I've saved a LOT of
money from this group! Some of it came from looking at
things in a different way, that came up in some of those
tangential OTs. Also puts a personal touch to the group.
-larry / dallas
Dennis
Maybe someone should create misc.consumers.frugaler-than-thou.wankfest
for the whiners.
Don K
> Being frugal is not about consuming, which all those posts basically
> make it seem like.
The name, "misc.consumers.frugal-living" implies that perhaps
some posts just might have something to do with consuming,
frugality, living, or miscellany.
Don
Melissa
I can't even get our ISP (Time Warner) to filter obvious nasty spam coming
through the email. Even when sent headers etc. they do nothing. I've blocked
most of the emails, but just haven't taken the time to write all the filters
for news.
Melissa
Anthony Matonak
>> or China. Your local ISP could be much more aggressive in filtering
>> out messages from known spam countries.
>
> through the email. Even when sent headers etc. they do nothing. I've blocked
> most of the emails, but just haven't taken the time to write all the filters
> for news.
Just because they don't take any responsibility for dealing with
criminals doesn't mean they can't do anything. You, as a lone voice
crying out in the darkness, might not get heard but if you band
together with similarly pissed off people then perhaps they would
do something.
I see no reason why China should be able to damage the Internet in
the United States without our government getting involved. Isn't
one of the reasons you have a government is to help protect you
against threats from other countries?
Anthony
Melissa
I don't want the government deciding what I can and can't read. It's a
slippery slope, and one we shouldn't get started on. There is a difference
between an ISP blocking spam and the government stepping in, making laws,
and getting involved in what we can read or not read online. I'd rather deal
with the spam and have the law makers stay out of it.
Melissa
Melissa
clams casino
The government should not be involved, but the local ISPs should block
domains with excessive spam, if for no reason than costing them band width.
A few such blocks would wake up the abusive domains. If you follow the
spam, most newsgroup spam arrive via google groups, primarily from
China, India & Pakistan.
Bob F
"clams casino" <PeterG...@drunkin-clam.com> wrote in message
news:npNLi.106158$GO6....@newsfe21.lga...
> Melissa wrote:
>
>>"David" <drn...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:7KidnXa58aBpAmLb...@comcast.com...
>>
>>>Has this newsgroup gone to the dogs (spammers) or what?
>>>
>>>David
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Yes. Lately it's nothing but cigarette spammers.
>>
>>Melissa
>>
>>
>>
> and chinese shoewear plus bestfreebies spam.
>
bestfreebies is really easy to block. Others take more complex rules. But there
are just more and more.
Bob