What's in it for the newbies?
A B
standards", to attract new users to Usenet there has to be something in it
for them. What's so great about Usenet that it's worth grappling with all
the dead groups, spam, flame wars, delusions and baffling slang, instead of
sticking with a nice civilised Web forum? For most people, I suppose,
nothing. But take away most people, and you're still left with any number
of potential users who just happen to like some peculiar feature of Usenet.
I reckon discussing possible good points of Usenet might shed some light on
where to look for people they'd appeal to.
I've thought of some to begin with.
* Odd as it sounds, Usenet is a very structured system in some ways.
Discussion boards all together, rather than scattered through the Net like
Web forums. A hierarchical set-up which (up to a point) organizes them all
by subject. And a very simple, text-only format, no pictures (give or take
a few binary groups), no funny faces, no fancy colours. Not that there's
anything tidy about the actual conversation in the groups. Still, some
people might like their format orderly and their content wildly chaotic. I
know I do, so it can happen.
* There's always the techie market, of course. Usenet has endless scope for
getting mixed up with the technical details, and that would probably appeal
to a lot of people. (I've never really got to grips with most of it, and
even I enjoy rummaging through message headers to work out which troll is
impersonating who this week.) I seem to remember someone saying that the
comp.* hierarchy is already one of the most popular.
* In a similar vein, surely some of the fans of "retro" technology might
take to Usenet, if someone introduced them to a workable group.
* Of course, many people would say that the greatest advantage of Usenet is
the preponderance of entirely uncontrolled and unmoderated groups. But
would it be wise to stress this too much? It might attract people who just
wanted a chance to fight - and I'd say Usenet has quite enough of those!
* You don't need to join anything. Just open your e-mail client or what not
and give it a go. (This at least makes it easier to try out). And it's
entirely anonymous, you don't even need to give your real e-mail address.
* I hesitate to say this, but... we could always try for people who want to
discuss weird things. I don't mean the really desperate,
CIA-Satanists-ate-my-hamster ones. Not that it's their fault they're that
way, but they wouldn't be a great asset. I was just thinking of people who
like to talk about Freemasons and UFOs and so forth. Why not? That seems
to be one area where you still can find a few like-minded oddballs on
Usenet. And it has an "underground" air about it that would appeal to the
conspiracy-minded ones.
* A perfect plague of "social networking features" seems to be spreading
through all the Web forums. Suddenly it's not enough to be able to post
messages, however fancy - all the forums have to have lists of "friends" and
"foes" and rankings of Most Popular Threads and tie-ins with Mybook and
FaceSpace. Of course that wouldn't really be enough of a reason by itself
to patronise Usenet, but it's a substantial side issue. I'm sure I'm not
the only one who finds it irritating.
Any more ideas, anyone? Or suggestions about how to make use of them?
--
A. B.
Yes, I'm new(ish). Make the best of it.
My e-mail address is zen177395 at zendotcodotuk.
I don't check that account very often, so tell me on the newsgroup if you've
sent me an e-mail.
Doug Freyburger
>
> * I hesitate to say this, but... we could always try for people who want to
> discuss weird things. I don't mean the really desperate,
> CIA-Satanists-ate-my-hamster ones. Not that it's their fault they're that
> way, but they wouldn't be a great asset. I was just thinking of people who
> like to talk about Freemasons and UFOs and so forth.
The crop of folks who oppose Freemasonry has grown pitiful over the
years. A few folks too crazy to even properly cut-n-paste. The quality
of the trolls has dropped over the years. The amount of on topic lodge
discussion continues low but steady.
> Any more ideas, anyone? Or suggestions about how to make use of them?
FAQ files tend to be better than any textbook I can think of. The depth
of expertese present on UseNet exceeds what I have found on any board.
This killer combination applies not just on computer or science groups
but in all sorts of topics.
A B
news:iasfd1$6hv$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>A B wrote:
>> * I hesitate to say this, but... we could always try for people who want
>> to
>> discuss weird things. I don't mean the really desperate,
>> CIA-Satanists-ate-my-hamster ones. Not that it's their fault they're
>> that
>> way, but they wouldn't be a great asset. I was just thinking of people
>> who
>> like to talk about Freemasons and UFOs and so forth.
>
> The crop of folks who oppose Freemasonry has grown pitiful over the
> years. A few folks too crazy to even properly cut-n-paste. The quality
> of the trolls has dropped over the years. The amount of on topic lodge
> discussion continues low but steady.
I was just speaking generally. I don't really follow the Freemason
discussions, not my pigeon.
>> Any more ideas, anyone? Or suggestions about how to make use of them?
>
> FAQ files tend to be better than any textbook I can think of. The depth
> of expertese present on UseNet exceeds what I have found on any board.
> This killer combination applies not just on computer or science groups
> but in all sorts of topics.
True. Even with the state that Usenet's in now, I'm often surprised by the
depth of knowledge shown by the occasional poster (in among the people who
don't know anything about the topic and don't want to). Of course, that
only applies to groups that are still more or less ticking over. But there
are quite a few of those.
--
A. B.
Peter J Ross
> As several people have already said in "Decline and changes to the
> standards", to attract new users to Usenet there has to be something in it
> for them.
Yes and no.
I think Usenet has a lot to offer newcomers, but I'd rather see Usenet
die than be irrevocably dumbed down the way so many "improvers" would
like it to be.
> What's so great about Usenet that it's worth grappling with all
> the dead groups, spam, flame wars, delusions and baffling slang, instead of
> sticking with a nice civilised Web forum? For most people, I suppose,
> nothing.
Most people aren't seriously offered the opportunity to find out. At
best, they stumble on Google Groups and either hate it (if they're
sensible) or like it (if they're stupid and/or kooky).
> But take away most people, and you're still left with any number
> of potential users who just happen to like some peculiar feature of Usenet.
> I reckon discussing possible good points of Usenet might shed some light on
> where to look for people they'd appeal to.
>
> I've thought of some to begin with.
OK.
> * Odd as it sounds, Usenet is a very structured system in some ways.
> Discussion boards all together, rather than scattered through the Net like
> Web forums. A hierarchical set-up which (up to a point) organizes them all
> by subject. And a very simple, text-only format, no pictures (give or take
> a few binary groups), no funny faces, no fancy colours. Not that there's
> anything tidy about the actual conversation in the groups. Still, some
> people might like their format orderly and their content wildly chaotic. I
> know I do, so it can happen.
Yes.
> * There's always the techie market, of course. Usenet has endless scope for
> getting mixed up with the technical details, and that would probably appeal
> to a lot of people. (I've never really got to grips with most of it, and
> even I enjoy rummaging through message headers to work out which troll is
> impersonating who this week.) I seem to remember someone saying that the
> comp.* hierarchy is already one of the most popular.
Well, the comp.*.*.advocacy groups are popular.
But comp.* groups (and alt.comp.* groups) certainly tend to do pretty
well despite low numbers of posts, partly because participants tend to
be clueful enough to use killfiles when appropriate and interested
enough in the topics to stick around during quiet spells.
> * In a similar vein, surely some of the fans of "retro" technology might
> take to Usenet, if someone introduced them to a workable group.
The Bambies spent their early years assiduously planning the removal
of groups that were related to "dead" technology. I think the anu-news
group was the only unmoderated victim, after which it was decided that
removing dead groups was a bit too much like real work, and sitting
around awarding oneself impressive titles was more fun.
> * Of course, many people would say that the greatest advantage of Usenet is
> the preponderance of entirely uncontrolled and unmoderated groups. But
> would it be wise to stress this too much? It might attract people who just
> wanted a chance to fight - and I'd say Usenet has quite enough of those!
Like we can't roast any pathetic Web-forum flamers to a crisp!
Look up the fight between alt.flame and www.brawl-hall.com, and don't
forget that most of the victorious alt.flamers were pathetic wannabes.
> * You don't need to join anything. Just open your e-mail client or what not
> and give it a go. (This at least makes it easier to try out). And it's
> entirely anonymous, you don't even need to give your real e-mail address.
One really *ought* to provide a real email address. One can bend the
RFCs, but one can't disobey them completely.
> * I hesitate to say this, but... we could always try for people who want to
> discuss weird things. I don't mean the really desperate,
> CIA-Satanists-ate-my-hamster ones. Not that it's their fault they're that
> way, but they wouldn't be a great asset. I was just thinking of people who
> like to talk about Freemasons and UFOs and so forth. Why not? That seems
> to be one area where you still can find a few like-minded oddballs on
> Usenet. And it has an "underground" air about it that would appeal to the
> conspiracy-minded ones.
Yeah! And then we can revive the Usenet Kook Awards!
> * A perfect plague of "social networking features" seems to be spreading
> through all the Web forums. Suddenly it's not enough to be able to post
> messages, however fancy - all the forums have to have lists of "friends" and
> "foes" and rankings of Most Popular Threads and tie-ins with Mybook and
> FaceSpace. Of course that wouldn't really be enough of a reason by itself
> to patronise Usenet, but it's a substantial side issue. I'm sure I'm not
> the only one who finds it irritating.
Yes, and almost any Web site you visit offers you the chance to "like"
it on facefuck.com (while running a nice bit of dodgy JavaScript on
your computer, of course).
> Any more ideas, anyone? Or suggestions about how to make use of them?
Here's a suggestion:
I don't think the right kind of newbies will be attracted until the
wrong kind of newbies are discouraged.
As a first step, all responsible newsadmins should start treating all
articles originating at Google Groups as spam.
Because "Come to Usenet! We have a neverending supply of clueless
twits!" isn't a great slogan.
--
PJR :-)
Peter J Ross
Freyburger <dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Thanks for popping up to remind me to mention that having a
Holocaust-revising Neo-Nazi spammer in a position of authority in the
Big-8 isn't likely to attract people to Usenet.
Dear Bambies: Isn't it time for Freyburger to be unceremoniously
deprived of the various privileges Skirvin and Kamens gave him in
exchange for his sickening displays of bootlicking?
--
PJR :-)
David Bostwick
network is shutting down? Universities are dropping their news servers
because of costs and the "hassle" of keeping them up. We're losing our news
server December 31, and our newsgroup of 15 years either finds a new server,
turns into a mailing list, or ends. Maybe universities aren't the biggest
users, but a lot of Usenet users got their start there, and the early years
of computer usage probably help set future usage. If all of the new blood is
using Facebook, Twitter, and the like, how do we get them involved in Usenet?
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
<iaufb6$id0$1...@news-int2.gatech.edu>:
> ... If all of the new blood is
>using Facebook, Twitter, and the like, how do we get them involved in Usenet?
Make it look like we're having fun? :o)
Marty
--
Member of the Big-8 Management Board (B8MB) <http://www.big-8.org>
Unless otherwise indicated, I speak for myself, not for the Board.
David Bostwick
>On Thu, 04 Nov 2010 15:18:18 GMT, david.b...@chemistry.gatech.edu (David
> Bostwick) wrote in
><iaufb6$id0$1...@news-int2.gatech.edu>:
>
>> ... If all of the new blood is
>>using Facebook, Twitter, and the like, how do we get them involved in Usenet?
>
>Make it look like we're having fun? :o)
>
> Marty
Hafta get 'em here first.
Let's see, Facebook is putting messages about their font change on Twitter, so
how can we get Usenet on Facebook, etc.?
Whiskers
Facebook doesn't let you choose your own font? Well there's one thing
Usenet does that Facebook doesn't.
Could newbies be convinced that Usenet is for grown-ups?
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
David Bostwick
There's a recent flap about FB changing fonts to a smaller, some say
unreadable, size. FB responded to complaints on Twitter, not FB. I'm not a
member, so I'm not sure of all the details. As you say, though, font size is
in favor of Usenet.
William Bagwell
>Any more ideas, anyone? Or suggestions about how to make use of them?
Usenet is vastly more efficient for those of us with diverse interests. Some
goober with only one or two hobbies is probably quite happy with web forums
(unless they like to argue off topic then they are truly missing the boat)
however boards drive me bonkers since they are all so different. Not counting
news aggregators with a bit discussion on the side (Slashdot, Fark...) I have
never followed web based focused topic forum *daily* until very recently. Many
I visit occasionally and have done so for years, but I'm talking keep a tab
opened check twice a day 'daily' here.
Two I stared following within days of each other are a case in point, Despite
both running phpBB the differences in versions, and / or the way the owner has
set them up, makes switching between them maddening. Have to log in, then click
to view new posts - on the opposite sides of the screen. Argh! Sadly neither
topic is a good candidate for usenet. One is too small and niche to attract
enough users to be viable, and the other is too closely related to a few
existing groups that attract cross posted political arguments.
No idea how this helps to attract new blood to usenet, sure feels good to rant
though:)
--
William
Steve Bonine
> Most people aren't seriously offered the opportunity to find out. At
> best, they stumble on Google Groups and either hate it (if they're
> sensible) or like it (if they're stupid and/or kooky).
Virtually all new users these days start at Google. Yes, there's a lot
of spam coming from there, and plenty of clueless submissions. I am
unwilling to consign 100% of these individuals as either stupid or kooky.
> But comp.* groups (and alt.comp.* groups) certainly tend to do pretty
> well despite low numbers of posts, partly because participants tend to
> be clueful enough to use killfiles when appropriate and interested
> enough in the topics to stick around during quiet spells.
Usenet is going full circle. It started as a collection of geeks who
wanted to discuss software, and it's becoming the last bastion of geeks
who want to discuss software. Wouldn't it be refreshing to see a group
that isn't related to computers thrive? Yet there was insufficient
interest in non-computer topics to save any of the 13 non-comp groups
which were recently removed because no one cared enough to moderate them.
> The Bambies spent their early years assiduously planning the removal
> of groups that were related to "dead" technology. I think the anu-news
> group was the only unmoderated victim, after which it was decided that
> removing dead groups was a bit too much like real work, and sitting
> around awarding oneself impressive titles was more fun.
It's interesting how you can revise history using words that have
negative connotation and half truth.
The discussion was related to dead groups, not groups that were related
to any particular technology. It wasn't limited to the comp hierarchy.
Using the anu-news example with the term "victim" implies that you
think this was a bad idea, but I don't think you really do. (I was the
proponent for that removal, so obviously I think it was appropriate,
since the software died with year-2000 and there had been no on-topic
traffic for years.)
There's a bit of truth in the slam, "too much like real work". I
naively thought that it would be nice if the canonical list of
newsgroups actually had some relation to reality. After all, how hard
could it be? But after seeing the fuss at the very idea of removing
newsgroups because they might spring back to life at any moment, I
concluded that the effort simply was not justified.
As for "impressive titles", I have not the foggiest idea of what you
mean, but it sure does sound good.
> One really *ought* to provide a real email address. One can bend the
> RFCs, but one can't disobey them completely.
Wow. I haven't seen anyone preach using a real email address for a
decade or more.
> Here's a suggestion:
>
> I don't think the right kind of newbies will be attracted until the
> wrong kind of newbies are discouraged.
>
> As a first step, all responsible newsadmins should start treating all
> articles originating at Google Groups as spam.
>
> Because "Come to Usenet! We have a neverending supply of clueless
> twits!" isn't a great slogan.
Usenet doesn't need any help in its decline, but you provide a great
illustration of how Usenet is Usenet's worst enemy. 100% negative; no
real ideas.
You're the one pitching killfiles. If you want to killfile Google
posts, have a ball. But in today's world, Google is the only path we
have for attracting new users. Until you can suggest an alternative,
what you're really saying is that you prefer to watch Usenet die.
Peter J Ross
<david.b...@chemistry.gatech.edu> wrote:
It's a shame that the gatech.edu server is shutting down, but
nothing's stopping you and other users finding another free provider.
There are several excellent ones.
If you want private newsgroups, just run your own server.
And if you want lots of Facebook and Twitter users on Usenet, for
FSM's sake make them put something matching @.*facebook\.com> or
@.*twitter\.com> in their message-ids so they can easily be killfiled
en masse.
--
PJR :-)
Peter J Ross
SJ <mol...@canisius.edu> wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Nov 2010 15:18:18 GMT, david.b...@chemistry.gatech.edu (David Bostwick) wrote in
> <iaufb6$id0$1...@news-int2.gatech.edu>:
>
>> ... If all of the new blood is
>>using Facebook, Twitter, and the like, how do we get them involved in Usenet?
>
> Make it look like we're having fun? :o)
I'm having fun. You're probably having fun. Usenet is fun. How can it
not look to any impartial observer as if we're having fun?
But it would be less fun if all the users of Facebook, Twitter etc
arrived, because they're accustomed to an incompatible culture, where
the first thing one does on reading something one disagrees with is to
complain to a moderator about it.
What I don't understand at all is the worry about Usenet growing
smaller, when the problem with Usenet from the beginning of the
Eternal September onwards has been that it's too big.
--
PJR :-)
Peter J Ross
<s...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Peter J Ross wrote:
>
>> Most people aren't seriously offered the opportunity to find out. At
>> best, they stumble on Google Groups and either hate it (if they're
>> sensible) or like it (if they're stupid and/or kooky).
>
> Virtually all new users these days start at Google. Yes, there's a lot
> of spam coming from there, and plenty of clueless submissions. I am
> unwilling to consign 100% of these individuals as either stupid or kooky.
No, some are neither stupid or kooky. They're the one who stop using
Google Gropes when they become aware of better alternatives - in much
the same way as I stopped using Outlook Express.
When I encounter an intelligent-seeming Google Groper, I try to make
helpful suggestions about servers and clients - as I'm sure you do
too.
>> But comp.* groups (and alt.comp.* groups) certainly tend to do pretty
>> well despite low numbers of posts, partly because participants tend to
>> be clueful enough to use killfiles when appropriate and interested
>> enough in the topics to stick around during quiet spells.
>
> Usenet is going full circle. It started as a collection of geeks who
> wanted to discuss software, and it's becoming the last bastion of geeks
> who want to discuss software.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
> Wouldn't it be refreshing to see a group
> that isn't related to computers thrive?
I've been chatting mostly about poetry and Doctor Who this week.
> Yet there was insufficient
> interest in non-computer topics to save any of the 13 non-comp groups
> which were recently removed because no one cared enough to moderate them.
If I'd been here, I'd have volunteered to moderate
rec.arts.drwho.info. I'd had my eye on the group for years, and I'm
horriefied that it disappeared when I wasn't looking.
>> The Bambies spent their early years assiduously planning the removal
>> of groups that were related to "dead" technology. I think the anu-news
>> group was the only unmoderated victim, after which it was decided that
>> removing dead groups was a bit too much like real work, and sitting
>> around awarding oneself impressive titles was more fun.
>
> It's interesting how you can revise history using words that have
> negative connotation and half truth.
>
> The discussion was related to dead groups, not groups that were related
> to any particular technology. It wasn't limited to the comp hierarchy.
> Using the anu-news example with the term "victim" implies that you
> think this was a bad idea, but I don't think you really do. (I was the
> proponent for that removal, so obviously I think it was appropriate,
> since the software died with year-2000 and there had been no on-topic
> traffic for years.)
I was using colourful language, but I don't really object to the
removal of news.software.anu-news. The assiduity involved in the
planning was admirable, and the only reason I call NSA-N a "victim" is
that it was singled out to be the only group removed.
> There's a bit of truth in the slam, "too much like real work". I
> naively thought that it would be nice if the canonical list of
> newsgroups actually had some relation to reality. After all, how hard
> could it be? But after seeing the fuss at the very idea of removing
> newsgroups because they might spring back to life at any moment, I
> concluded that the effort simply was not justified.
I don't remember much fuss about the anu-news group. I also don't
remember much fuss when I concluded that my own efforts to identify
"dead" groups were of no value since some of the "dead" groups preved
to have been "just resting".
> As for "impressive titles", I have not the foggiest idea of what you
> mean, but it sure does sound good.
I forget, are you the "head moderator" or the "lead moderator" of the
Bambies' silly vanity group?
The funniest "impressive title" of all is "Big Eight Management
Board", of course.
>> One really *ought* to provide a real email address. One can bend the
>> RFCs, but one can't disobey them completely.
>
> Wow. I haven't seen anyone preach using a real email address for a
> decade or more.
You evidently don't read de.* or quite a lot of news.admin.*!
I'm not exactly preaching - I leave that to the zealots - but I do
think one should make adequate provision for discussions drifting from
public to private.
>> Here's a suggestion:
>>
>> I don't think the right kind of newbies will be attracted until the
>> wrong kind of newbies are discouraged.
>>
>> As a first step, all responsible newsadmins should start treating all
>> articles originating at Google Groups as spam.
>>
>> Because "Come to Usenet! We have a neverending supply of clueless
>> twits!" isn't a great slogan.
>
> Usenet doesn't need any help in its decline, but you provide a great
> illustration of how Usenet is Usenet's worst enemy. 100% negative; no
> real ideas.
Nope. You want people to move into a house that's full of steaming
piles of shit. The only tenants you're going to attract are ones who
like the smell.
I'm the one who suggests doing a bit of spring-cleaning, painting the
front door and providing an appetising smell of real coffe and freshly
baked bread.
> You're the one pitching killfiles. If you want to killfile Google
> posts, have a ball. But in today's world, Google is the only path we
> have for attracting new users. Until you can suggest an alternative,
> what you're really saying is that you prefer to watch Usenet die.
I prefer to watch Usenet die, if the alternative is watching Usenet
corrupted to the point where it's no better than Facebook or Twitter.
--
PJR :-)
Alexander Bartolich
> [...]
> If I'd been here, I'd have volunteered to moderate
> rec.arts.drwho.info. I'd had my eye on the group for years, and I'm
> horriefied that it disappeared when I wasn't looking.
According to Google's archive the last regular post to that group
was approved on 2006-02-02. I started the MVI four and a half years
later, in August 2010. What were you waiting for in that four years?
OK, that was a rhetoric question. The real question is this: what do
you expect to gain by being angry at the people who did the job you
were to lazy to do?
Adam H. Kerman
You think sending a rmgroup message is a job, as in work?
Just once, say something surprising; I double dog dare you.
btw, you might have noticed that Google Groups has been broken for a
very long time. The articles are probably there, but the indexes are hosed
and the search algorithms aren't working. Perhaps you could check a News
server with long retention instead?
Also, do you think you might tell us who the moderator your investigating is?
That critical bit of information has been missing from your MVIs.
Steve Bonine
> In news.groups on Thu, 04 Nov 2010 22:42:02 -0500, Steve Bonine
> <s...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> Peter J Ross wrote:
>>
>>> Most people aren't seriously offered the opportunity to find out. At
>>> best, they stumble on Google Groups and either hate it (if they're
>>> sensible) or like it (if they're stupid and/or kooky).
>>
>> Virtually all new users these days start at Google. Yes, there's a lot
>> of spam coming from there, and plenty of clueless submissions. I am
>> unwilling to consign 100% of these individuals as either stupid or kooky.
>
> No, some are neither stupid or kooky. They're the one who stop using
> Google Gropes when they become aware of better alternatives - in much
> the same way as I stopped using Outlook Express.
>
> When I encounter an intelligent-seeming Google Groper, I try to make
> helpful suggestions about servers and clients - as I'm sure you do
> too.
But you say, "As a first step, all responsible newsadmins should start
treating all articles originating at Google Groups as spam." If indeed
they took your advice, you would never see an intelligent-seeming Google
Groper.
>> Usenet is going full circle. It started as a collection of geeks who
>> wanted to discuss software, and it's becoming the last bastion of geeks
>> who want to discuss software.
>
> You say that like it's a bad thing.
I think it is. You don't. We disagree.
>
> If I'd been here, I'd have volunteered to moderate
> rec.arts.drwho.info. I'd had my eye on the group for years, and I'm
> horriefied that it disappeared when I wasn't looking.
If your horror is real, all you need to do is submit an RFD to restart
the group. The MVI was effectively a proposal for a new group anyway in
the sense that the newsgroup had been dead for so long that anyone who
wants it to succeed is starting from scratch and needs to do all the
things that the proponent of a new newsgroup would need to do.
I have little personal interest in Dr. Who but I would love to see
someone succeed at restarting the group. In fact, if you really are
willing to take on the project, I'll help by writing and submitting the RFD.
> I was using colourful language, but I don't really object to the
> removal of news.software.anu-news. The assiduity involved in the
> planning was admirable, and the only reason I call NSA-N a "victim" is
> that it was singled out to be the only group removed.
Not really "singled out". It was my personal project, and had nothing
to do with the big-8 board (other than what any RFD that any individual
submitted would have to do with the board). I went through the process
to understand how much work it was to remove a newsgroup. The fact that
the newsgroup needed to be removed was certainly a motivation but
frankly not the primary motivation.
The conclusion I reached, based on the one RFD and observing discussion
in news.groups, was that the project of cleaning up the canonical list
was a noble one, but not worth the effort that would be required to
accomplish it. That's my own opinion, and not everyone agrees, but it
has guided my personal actions since. If I had infinite time, I would
pursue removing dead groups because "it's something that should be
done". But I like most other folks, there are more potential projects
out there than I will get to in my lifetime, and this is one that will
always fall below the line of what gets my attention.
> I prefer to watch Usenet die, if the alternative is watching Usenet
> corrupted to the point where it's no better than Facebook or Twitter.
Usenet has two choices, and one of them probably isn't real anyway.
It can fail to attract new users, in which case it will die. Not today
or tomorrow, but in a few years, because Usenet is a community and a
community ceases to exist when there's no one there. Usenet today is in
exactly the same position as a small rural town where all the young
people move away, and I've seen what happens to those towns.
Or it can attract new users and survive. That means that it will
change; when you change the population of a community, the community
changes. Over the decades, Usenet has changed; it's not the same place
that it was just after the concept of newsgroups was invented.
Personally, I prefer alternative two. I'm willing to take the risk that
the change will be positive, or that at least it will have positive
aspects. It's a little like growing old . . . I don't like the process
of growing old, but I like the alternative less.
Adam H. Kerman
>Peter J Ross wrote:
>>Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>Peter J Ross wrote:
>>>>Most people aren't seriously offered the opportunity to find out. At
>>>>best, they stumble on Google Groups and either hate it (if they're
>>>>sensible) or like it (if they're stupid and/or kooky).
>>>Virtually all new users these days start at Google. Yes, there's a lot
>>>of spam coming from there, and plenty of clueless submissions. I am
>>>unwilling to consign 100% of these individuals as either stupid or kooky.
>>No, some are neither stupid or kooky. They're the one who stop using
>>Google Gropes when they become aware of better alternatives - in much
>>the same way as I stopped using Outlook Express.
>>When I encounter an intelligent-seeming Google Groper, I try to make
>>helpful suggestions about servers and clients - as I'm sure you do
>>too.
>But you say, "As a first step, all responsible newsadmins should start
>treating all articles originating at Google Groups as spam." If indeed
>they took your advice, you would never see an intelligent-seeming Google
>Groper.
Must... resist... obvious... straight... line.
A B
> What I don't understand at all is the worry about Usenet growing
> smaller, when the problem with Usenet from the beginning of the
> Eternal September onwards has been that it's too big.
Depends what exactly is too big, I suppose, ie what Usenet has too much of.
I think there are too few serious posters (even inexpert ones) to balance
too many maniacs, advertisers, trolls and so forth. We could certainly do
without so many of the latter. I'd say we could do without quite so many
groups, too - there simply aren't enough posters to keep a lot of them
going.
--
A. B.
A B
news:mue6d69np8tnl57nn...@4ax.com...
Actually, I think you're on to something. I did suggest that not having to
join anything is a small point in Usenet's favour, but you've taken it a lot
further than I managed to. Yes - no need to register or log in - set up
your chosen newsreader once, then drop into whichever group takes your
fancy. That sounds quite good. All helps.
--
A. B.
A B
> <s...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> Wouldn't it be refreshing to see a group
>> that isn't related to computers thrive?
"Peter J Ross" <p...@example.invalid> replied on 5th November 2010:
> I've been chatting mostly about poetry and Doctor Who this week.
The gardening groups seem to be doing quite nicely, too, though of course
suffering badly from spam.
> If I'd been here, I'd have volunteered to moderate
> rec.arts.drwho.info. I'd had my eye on the group for years, and I'm
> horriefied that it disappeared when I wasn't looking.
Why not leave a note in the group itself when you saw it had gone downhill,
saying that you'd moderate it if need be? Surely the admins look at the
last postings in a group when deciding what to do with it?
> Nope. You want people to move into a house that's full of steaming
> piles of shit. The only tenants you're going to attract are ones who
> like the smell.
>
> I'm the one who suggests doing a bit of spring-cleaning, painting the
> front door and providing an appetising smell of real coffe and freshly
> baked bread.
I'd be only too glad to see the pornographers, pyramid schemes, full-time
flamers, Nigerian con-men etc. etc. etc. banished into outer darkness, and I
think that would be the single best thing you could do to attract new users.
But a blanket ban on Google Groups strikes me as more like, say, considering
only tenants who arrive in a limousine. Yes, that would certainly avoid
tramps, but you'd have to wait a long time for any tenants at all.
> I prefer to watch Usenet die, if the alternative is watching Usenet
> corrupted to the point where it's no better than Facebook or Twitter.
If that's the way you feel, then the obvious solution is to go away and
pretend it died frothing at the mouth and coughing up gallons of junk mail
but untainted by the ignorant. Then everyone else can get on with trying to
keep it going in any way at all. Seriously, if there are going to be
newbies at all, they can't be expected to understand Usenet at first. How
could they? But I don't think even advertisements on Facebook would produce
more than a trickle of new users. There'd always be a fair proportion of
experienced posters ready to nag them into shape. (You're right that anyone
canvassing for new users would have to be a little bit careful not to overdo
it. But I think that's unlikely to be a problem...)
--
A. B.
Frank Slootweg
(In addition to the above,) What I especially like about Usenet/News,
is the world-wide nature. I.e. while there's quite some duplication of
groups and it's sometimes difficult to determine the 'right' group for a
given topic, you won't have a multitude of totally seperate (web)fora
about the same topic.
I only use webfora if I *have* to, and that has nothing to do with the
fact that they are web- or/and GUI based, but all with the akward-to-use
(see above) and badly-structured aspects.
But I doubt if the web-fora users will ever 'get', what the fsck we're
on about. I don't know how to change that, other than literally take
them by the hand, i.e. sit together and show them.
And FWIW, I don't consider web-forum users, GG users, etc., some lower
form of life. I think it's rather dumb to judge people by the tools they
happen to use. 'Knowing' some very clever GG-ers and some total morons
using 'real' newsreaders only strengthens that opinion.
A B
news:8jlr90...@mid.individual.net...
Quite agree with you there. Mind you, I would say that - I use Windows Mail
for newsgroups. It does the job.
A huge proportion of spam does seem to come via Google Groups, but I think
that mainly reflects the fact that a huge proportion of all postings come
via GG. Especially those from newish posters, and most Usenet spammers
aren't too persistent. If Usenet cut off GG, it'd lose a lot of spammers,
but also a lot of newbies. And it really can't afford that!
nat
>"Peter J Ross" <p...@example.invalid> wrote on 5th November:
>> What I don't understand at all is the worry about Usenet growing
>> smaller, when the problem with Usenet from the beginning of the
>> Eternal September onwards has been that it's too big.
http://antimatrix.
org/Convert/Articles_AntiMatrix/Zionism/Antimatrix-Zionism-05500144.html
nat
Here is an interesting bit from
http://antimatrix.
org/Convert/Articles_AntiMatrix/Censorship/Antimatrix-Censorship-05500888.html
>>I asked that pervert Russ how much money do they
>>receive from US military and intelligence in form of "sponsorship".
>>Zo far, do not recall seeing the reply.
>It obviously must be a substantial sum as the principle of isc.org,
>Paul Vixie, is reported to have "voluntarily" donated $1 million to
>MAPS which is an organization designed to disrupt worldwide
>electronic communications.
Peter J Ross
Bartolich <alexander...@gmx.at> wrote:
> Peter J Ross wrote:
>> [...]
>> If I'd been here, I'd have volunteered to moderate
>> rec.arts.drwho.info. I'd had my eye on the group for years, and I'm
>> horriefied that it disappeared when I wasn't looking.
>
> According to Google's archive the last regular post to that group
> was approved on 2006-02-02. I started the MVI four and a half years
> later, in August 2010. What were you waiting for in that four years?
I was waiting for some tidiness-obsessed twit like you to propose
removing the group so you could be defeated in your silly endeavour.
> OK, that was a rhetoric question. The real question is this: what do
> you expect to gain by being angry at the people who did the job you
> were to lazy to do?
It's incredible how fast you've adopted the traditional Bamby
technique of lying and misrepresenting people.
Now fuck off back to your treehouse.
--
PJR :-)
Peter J Ross
<s...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Peter J Ross wrote:
>> In news.groups on Thu, 04 Nov 2010 22:42:02 -0500, Steve Bonine
>> <s...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Peter J Ross wrote:
>>>
>>>> Most people aren't seriously offered the opportunity to find out. At
>>>> best, they stumble on Google Groups and either hate it (if they're
>>>> sensible) or like it (if they're stupid and/or kooky).
>>>
>>> Virtually all new users these days start at Google. Yes, there's a lot
>>> of spam coming from there, and plenty of clueless submissions. I am
>>> unwilling to consign 100% of these individuals as either stupid or kooky.
>>
>> No, some are neither stupid or kooky. They're the one who stop using
>> Google Gropes when they become aware of better alternatives - in much
>> the same way as I stopped using Outlook Express.
>>
>> When I encounter an intelligent-seeming Google Groper, I try to make
>> helpful suggestions about servers and clients - as I'm sure you do
>> too.
>
> But you say, "As a first step, all responsible newsadmins should start
> treating all articles originating at Google Groups as spam." If indeed
> they took your advice, you would never see an intelligent-seeming Google
> Groper.
If Google Gropes were cut off from Usenet and left to the spammers and
morons, the intelligent people wouldn't be tempted to go there. They
might search a little further and start off a little later but with
fewer disadvantages.
>>> Usenet is going full circle. It started as a collection of geeks who
>>> wanted to discuss software, and it's becoming the last bastion of geeks
>>> who want to discuss software.
>>
>> You say that like it's a bad thing.
>
> I think it is. You don't. We disagree.
That's fine, but it's often taken as axiomatic that there should be
lots of people discussing lots of topics on Usenet. If you assume that
everybody thinks so, you may find yourself begging the question.
>> If I'd been here, I'd have volunteered to moderate
>> rec.arts.drwho.info. I'd had my eye on the group for years, and I'm
>> horriefied that it disappeared when I wasn't looking.
>
> If your horror is real, all you need to do is submit an RFD to restart
> the group. The MVI was effectively a proposal for a new group anyway in
> the sense that the newsgroup had been dead for so long that anyone who
> wants it to succeed is starting from scratch and needs to do all the
> things that the proponent of a new newsgroup would need to do.
I'll consider submitting an RFD once the Bambies accept that
news.groups is the only proper place for discussion of it.
> I have little personal interest in Dr. Who but I would love to see
> someone succeed at restarting the group. In fact, if you really are
> willing to take on the project, I'll help by writing and submitting the RFD.
I can write RFDs, you know. (Remember the one Skirvin plagiarised?)
But of course I can't submit an RFD under the current rules, which
amount to a kind of Test Act.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_Act>
But if *you* choose to submit an RFD, I'll be happy to be listed as a
proposed moderator, and to assist in drafting etc.
Good material for the newsgroup would include the more important news
that gets posted here: http://gallifreynewsbase.blogspot.com/
And of course FAQs.
And other stuff, probably mostly originating from a small number of
whitelisted posters.
>> I was using colourful language, but I don't really object to the
>> removal of news.software.anu-news. The assiduity involved in the
>> planning was admirable, and the only reason I call NSA-N a "victim" is
>> that it was singled out to be the only group removed.
>
> Not really "singled out". It was my personal project, and had nothing
> to do with the big-8 board (other than what any RFD that any individual
> submitted would have to do with the board). I went through the process
> to understand how much work it was to remove a newsgroup. The fact that
> the newsgroup needed to be removed was certainly a motivation but
> frankly not the primary motivation.
Why do you think it "needed" to be removed? What harm was it doing?
I can see some advantage in removing moderated newsgroups for which no
moderator can be found (after a proper investigation), since otherwise
potential posters may have their time wasted, but removing groups just
because nobody's posting to them seems futile.
> The conclusion I reached, based on the one RFD and observing discussion
> in news.groups, was that the project of cleaning up the canonical list
> was a noble one, but not worth the effort that would be required to
> accomplish it. That's my own opinion, and not everyone agrees, but it
> has guided my personal actions since. If I had infinite time, I would
> pursue removing dead groups because "it's something that should be
> done". But I like most other folks, there are more potential projects
> out there than I will get to in my lifetime, and this is one that will
> always fall below the line of what gets my attention.
OTOH, there are groups that really ought to be removed, where the
effort would be justified. The Bamby treehouse, the Rhode Islanders'
chatroom, the eo-Nazi recruiting group...
>> I prefer to watch Usenet die, if the alternative is watching Usenet
>> corrupted to the point where it's no better than Facebook or Twitter.
>
> Usenet has two choices, and one of them probably isn't real anyway.
>
> It can fail to attract new users, in which case it will die. Not today
> or tomorrow, but in a few years, because Usenet is a community and a
> community ceases to exist when there's no one there. Usenet today is in
> exactly the same position as a small rural town where all the young
> people move away, and I've seen what happens to those towns.
>
> Or it can attract new users and survive. That means that it will
> change; when you change the population of a community, the community
> changes. Over the decades, Usenet has changed; it's not the same place
> that it was just after the concept of newsgroups was invented.
>
> Personally, I prefer alternative two. I'm willing to take the risk that
> the change will be positive, or that at least it will have positive
> aspects. It's a little like growing old . . . I don't like the process
> of growing old, but I like the alternative less.
Well, I'm sure you and I will still be here whatever happens.
Thank you for being civil. Maybe you can give Bartolich some lessons.
--
PJR :-)
Peter J Ross
> "Peter J Ross" <p...@example.invalid> wrote on 5th November:
>> What I don't understand at all is the worry about Usenet growing
>> smaller, when the problem with Usenet from the beginning of the
>> Eternal September onwards has been that it's too big.
>
> Depends what exactly is too big, I suppose, ie what Usenet has too much of.
> I think there are too few serious posters (even inexpert ones) to balance
> too many maniacs, advertisers, trolls and so forth. We could certainly do
> without so many of the latter.
Kooks and trolls have always been part of Usenet culture, and some of
them even tend to add to the enjoyment for everybody else.
One of the great things about Usenet that make it better than all the
cheap imitations is that it's fundamentally a bit silly.
> I'd say we could do without quite so many
> groups, too - there simply aren't enough posters to keep a lot of them
> going.
At present, there's no way of removing groups except by notifying
server admins that somebody (with or without a PGP key to brandish)
would like them to be removed, and most server admins aren't
interested.
--
PJR :-)
Peter J Ross
>> In news.groups on Thu, 04 Nov 2010 22:42:02 -0500, Steve Bonine
>> <s...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> Wouldn't it be refreshing to see a group
>>> that isn't related to computers thrive?
>
> "Peter J Ross" <p...@example.invalid> replied on 5th November 2010:
>> I've been chatting mostly about poetry and Doctor Who this week.
>
> The gardening groups seem to be doing quite nicely, too, though of course
> suffering badly from spam.
At present I see a *bit* of spam, but hardly more than a handful of
simple client filters would remove.
>> If I'd been here, I'd have volunteered to moderate
>> rec.arts.drwho.info. I'd had my eye on the group for years, and I'm
>> horriefied that it disappeared when I wasn't looking.
>
> Why not leave a note in the group itself when you saw it had gone downhill,
> saying that you'd moderate it if need be? Surely the admins look at the
> last postings in a group when deciding what to do with it?
There were lots of things I could have done but didn't.
Recreating the group now would be difficult, not least because there
are certain specific hoops through which I will not jump.
>> Nope. You want people to move into a house that's full of steaming
>> piles of shit. The only tenants you're going to attract are ones who
>> like the smell.
>>
>> I'm the one who suggests doing a bit of spring-cleaning, painting the
>> front door and providing an appetising smell of real coffe and freshly
>> baked bread.
>
> I'd be only too glad to see the pornographers, pyramid schemes, full-time
> flamers, Nigerian con-men etc. etc. etc. banished into outer darkness, and I
> think that would be the single best thing you could do to attract new users.
> But a blanket ban on Google Groups strikes me as more like, say, considering
> only tenants who arrive in a limousine. Yes, that would certainly avoid
> tramps, but you'd have to wait a long time for any tenants at all.
No, I only want to evict the more objectionable sitting tenants before
inviting new ones for a viewing.
<...>
Perhaps what we really need is Usenet Two Done Right.
--
PJR :-)
Steve Bonine
> Peter J Ross wrote:
>> If I'd been here, I'd have volunteered to moderate
>> rec.arts.drwho.info. I'd had my eye on the group for years, and I'm
>> horriefied that it disappeared when I wasn't looking.
>
> If your horror is real, all you need to do is submit an RFD to restart
> the group. The MVI was effectively a proposal for a new group anyway in
> the sense that the newsgroup had been dead for so long that anyone who
> wants it to succeed is starting from scratch and needs to do all the
> things that the proponent of a new newsgroup would need to do.
>
> I have little personal interest in Dr. Who but I would love to see
> someone succeed at restarting the group. In fact, if you really are
> willing to take on the project, I'll help by writing and submitting the
> RFD.
Peter J Ross wrote:
> Now fuck off back to your treehouse.
I give up.
Alexander Bartolich
>> I have little personal interest in Dr. Who but I would love to see
>> someone succeed at restarting the group. In fact, if you really are
>> willing to take on the project, I'll help by writing and submitting the RFD.
>
> I can write RFDs, you know. (Remember the one Skirvin plagiarised?)
>
> But of course I can't submit an RFD under the current rules, which
> amount to a kind of Test Act.
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_Act>
>
> But if *you* choose to submit an RFD, I'll be happy to be listed as a
> proposed moderator, and to assist in drafting etc.
We already had that situation. You did not deliver.
Message-ID: <hg3q8r$2o1$1...@news.albasani.net>
# Subject: RFD: comp.ai.jair.* moderated (change moderator or remove) LAST CALL FOR COMMENTS
# [...]
# Peter J Ross has volunteered to take over moderation of these group.
# [...]
--
Doug Freyburger
> A B <a...@a.uk> wrote:
>
>> Actually, I think you're on to something. I did suggest that not having to
>> join anything is a small point in Usenet's favour, but you've taken it a lot
>> further than I managed to. Yes - no need to register or log in - set up
>> your chosen newsreader once, then drop into whichever group takes your
>> fancy. That sounds quite good. All helps.
With UseNet I needed to sign up for one account for every topic not one
account per topic. With UseNet when my vendor went out of business I
signed up for another one and I still had the exact same list of topics.
With web fora some continue to function year after year while others go
away without notice. With UseNet when a group goes away its archives
remain. With web fora when a forum goes away its contents are usually
gone forever.
> I only use webfora if I *have* to, and that has nothing to do with the
> fact that they are web- or/and GUI based, but all with the akward-to-use
> (see above) and badly-structured aspects.
I am active on a few single topic boards that don't have enough users to
build a newsgroup or that are too vendor focused. For me it's not about
the intereface; it's about the availability.
> And FWIW, I don't consider web-forum users, GG users, etc., some lower
> form of life. I think it's rather dumb to judge people by the tools they
> happen to use. 'Knowing' some very clever GG-ers and some total morons
> using 'real' newsreaders only strengthens that opinion.
This is a gigantic disadvantage to UseNet. Abusers abound and anyone
who complains about abusers gets further abused that they don't know
what "really" counts as abuse. Very few newbies are willing to tolerate
that sort of abuse so they go elsewhere. The freedom of speech aspect
of UseNet means that abuers flock to it - The trajedy of the commons
mapped into the free speech arena. Anything that's free enough gets
abused.
Doug Freyburger
> Peter J Ross wrote:
>
>> proposed moderator, and to assist in drafting etc.
>
> We already had that situation. You did not deliver.
>
> Message-ID: <hg3q8r$2o1$1...@news.albasani.net>
> # Subject: RFD: comp.ai.jair.* moderated (change moderator or remove) LAST CALL FOR COMMENTS
> # [...]
> # Peter J Ross has volunteered to take over moderation of these group.
> # [...]
It wasn't the only time. PJR served as a moderator for
soc.men.moderated for a while as well. It's possible to view that as a
sincere attempt and it's also possible to view that as a magnificent
troll. Which it was depends on the reader.
Kathy Morgan
> The gardening groups seem to be doing quite nicely, too, though of course
> suffering badly from spam. (...)
>
> I'd be only too glad to see the pornographers, pyramid schemes, full-time
> flamers, Nigerian con-men etc. etc. etc. banished into outer darkness, and I
> think that would be the single best thing you could do to attract new users.
If you're seeing a lot of those types of messages, then you're using a
poorly run server. A well run server is going to filter most of that
out; I truly can't remember the last time I saw anything like that in
any of the groups I use. There are some free and low-cost servers that
do an excellent job of filtering and are well-connected so that they
seldom miss a legitimate article. For free servers, I'd recommend
Eternal September <http://www.eternal-september.org> and Albasani
<http://www.albasani.net>. For low-cost but not free, try
Individual.net <http://www.individual.net>, which costs 10 Euros per
year. (That's currently approximately US $14.)
--
Kathy
A B
news:slrniddvd...@pjr.gotdns.org...
> In news.groups on Sat, 6 Nov 2010 18:36:03 -0000, A B <a...@a.uk> wrote:
>
>> "Peter J Ross" <p...@example.invalid> wrote on 5th November:
>>> What I don't understand at all is the worry about Usenet growing
>>> smaller, when the problem with Usenet from the beginning of the
>>> Eternal September onwards has been that it's too big.
>>
>> Depends what exactly is too big, I suppose, ie what Usenet has too much
>> of.
>> I think there are too few serious posters (even inexpert ones) to balance
>> too many maniacs, advertisers, trolls and so forth. We could certainly
>> do
>> without so many of the latter.
>
> Kooks and trolls have always been part of Usenet culture, and some of
> them even tend to add to the enjoyment for everybody else.
>
> One of the great things about Usenet that make it better than all the
> cheap imitations is that it's fundamentally a bit silly.
Sure. But a lot of groups have got to the point where there is NO on-topic
discussion, it's just all a big private joke/hate campaign (depending on
taste of inhabitants).
A B
>A B <a...@a.uk> wrote:
>> I'd be only too glad to see the pornographers, pyramid schemes, full-time
>> flamers, Nigerian con-men etc. etc. etc. banished into outer darkness,
>> and I
>> think that would be the single best thing you could do to attract new
>> users.
>
> If you're seeing a lot of those types of messages, then you're using a
> poorly run server. A well run server is going to filter most of that
> out; I truly can't remember the last time I saw anything like that in
> any of the groups I use. There are some free and low-cost servers that
> do an excellent job of filtering and are well-connected so that they
> seldom miss a legitimate article. For free servers, I'd recommend
> Eternal September <http://www.eternal-september.org> and Albasani
> <http://www.albasani.net>. For low-cost but not free, try
> Individual.net <http://www.individual.net>, which costs 10 Euros per
> year. (That's currently approximately US $14.)
Thanks for the tips. I'll try that when I have time. I'm just using my
ISP's news server at present - they pretty much let everyone get on with it.
The main problem is a site (presumably pornographic, from its resemblance to
a more descriptively titled one a while back) that posts dozens of laconic
ads a day, each from a different name and Gmail address. Different subject
line, too. A bit beyond Windows Mail's filtering capabilities.
A B
> In news.groups on Sat, 6 Nov 2010 19:29:29 -0000, A B <a...@a.uk> wrote:
>> The gardening groups seem to be doing quite nicely, too, though of course
>> suffering badly from spam.
>
> At present I see a *bit* of spam, but hardly more than a handful of
> simple client filters would remove.
I see almost as much spam as genuine postings. Probably, as Kathy Morgan
suggested, I have a lazier news server than you. I'll do something about
that when I get round to it. Glad to know the problem's not universal,
anyway.
Adam H. Kerman
>"Peter J Ross" <p...@example.invalid> wrote:
>>on Sat, 6 Nov 2010 18:36:03 -0000, A B <a...@a.uk> wrote:
>>>"Peter J Ross" <p...@example.invalid> wrote on 5th November:
>>>>What I don't understand at all is the worry about Usenet growing
>>>>smaller, when the problem with Usenet from the beginning of the
>>>>Eternal September onwards has been that it's too big.
>>>Depends what exactly is too big, I suppose, ie what Usenet has too
>>>much of. I think there are too few serious posters (even inexpert
>>>ones) to balance too many maniacs, advertisers, trolls and so forth.
>>>We could certainly do without so many of the latter.
>>Kooks and trolls have always been part of Usenet culture, and some of
>>them even tend to add to the enjoyment for everybody else.
>>One of the great things about Usenet that make it better than all the
>>cheap imitations is that it's fundamentally a bit silly.
>Sure. But a lot of groups have got to the point where there is NO on-topic
>discussion, it's just all a big private joke/hate campaign (depending on
>taste of inhabitants).
My followup is addressed specifically to A B; no one else comment before
he posts his followup.
Dear A B,
Now that you're an experienced Usenet user of all of two months, what is
the solution to the problem of lack of on-topic discussion when one
encounters a newsgroup whose topic, as suggested by the group's name,
is of interest to the user but the ongoing discussion is not?
If you don't understand the fundamental nature of Usenet, you're just
not the right guy to be lecturing us.
A B
news:ibc7o8$2ri$1...@news.albasani.net...
First, you're about 19 months out, for what it matters.
Second, I've no idea, except to try and round up more people who are
interested in the topic. What was your point?
Third, if newbies' complaints are to be dismissed out of hand, attracting
new users is going to be pretty tricky...
A B
> I can write RFDs, you know. (Remember the one Skirvin plagiarised?)
>
> But of course I can't submit an RFD under the current rules, which
> amount to a kind of Test Act.
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_Act>
What ARE the current rules? And which one's bothering you?
Adam H. Kerman
>>Dear A B,
Wrong answer.
If you don't see discussion of interest to you, start some without
waiting for others. Don't participate in off topic discussion. Post
on topic, and only on topic. That helps revive interest in a group.
>Third, if newbies' complaints are to be dismissed out of hand, attracting
>new users is going to be pretty tricky...
Complaints should be ignored. They are always off topic.
A B
Blast. I always leave out the obvious answer. Apart from that, I meant.
(I do my best to, by the way.)
>>Third, if newbies' complaints are to be dismissed out of hand, attracting
>>new users is going to be pretty tricky...
>
> Complaints should be ignored. They are always off topic.
What, even in a discussion of why new users don't hang around?
--
All the best,
Dave Sill
> What ARE the current rules?
See http://www.big-8.org/ ... especially http://www.big-8.org/wiki/
How_to_Create_a_New_Big-8_Newsgroup.
-Dave
Steve Bonine
> "Peter J Ross" <p...@example.invalid> wrote on 7th November:
>> I can write RFDs, you know. (Remember the one Skirvin plagiarised?)
>>
>> But of course I can't submit an RFD under the current rules, which
>> amount to a kind of Test Act.
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_Act>
>
> What ARE the current rules? And which one's bothering you?
Dave filled you in on the current rules, although his posting of the URL
wrapped on my system. If you go to http://www.big-8.org/ I don't think
you'll have any problem finding the information you seek.
As for what's bothering PJR, I suspect you're missing a bit of context.
I will brutally summarize it for you in a few sentences; you can find
as much more detail as you want at the above site or in archives of
news.groups from the period. The current administration of the big-8
Usenet hierarchies is a board that was instituted about five years ago.
As with any transition, there are individuals who are unhappy about
the new organization, the people in the new organization, decisions made
by those people, and life in general. It is impossible to know if "I
can't submit an RFD under the current rules" is a genuine attempt to
express an opinion or an excuse for not doing any real work.
Adam H. Kerman
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote on 9th November:
>>A B <a...@a.uk> wrote:
>>>Third, if newbies' complaints are to be dismissed out of hand, attracting
>>>new users is going to be pretty tricky...
>>Complaints should be ignored. They are always off topic.
>What, even in a discussion of why new users don't hang around?
If the complaints are in the group in question, yes.
Adam H. Kerman
>As for what's bothering PJR, I suspect you're missing a bit of context.
> I will brutally summarize it for you in a few sentences; you can find
>as much more detail as you want at the above site or in archives of
>news.groups from the period. The current administration of the big-8
>Usenet hierarchies is a board that was instituted about five years ago.
> As with any transition, there are individuals who are unhappy about
>the new organization, the people in the new organization, decisions made
>by those people, and life in general. It is impossible to know if "I
>can't submit an RFD under the current rules" is a genuine attempt to
>express an opinion or an excuse for not doing any real work.
Steve is a gossip.
nat
Becase NONE of you, donkey ass suckers, have ANYTHING to say of ANY value.
Secondly, what is democracy?
Well, it is not some place where YOU, censoring idiots of blood boiling
grade, DICTATE what is what and who is who.
You don't like to read some post?
WHO is forcing you?
Do you know how to push the "next" button on your dinky newsreader?
Oh, not enough brain power fer dat?
nat
>A B <a...@a.uk> wrote:
>>"Peter J Ross" <p...@example.invalid> wrote:
>>>on Sat, 6 Nov 2010 18:36:03 -0000, A B <a...@a.uk> wrote:
>>>>"Peter J Ross" <p...@example.invalid> wrote on 5th November:
>>>Kooks and trolls have always been part of Usenet culture, and some of
>>>them even tend to add to the enjoyment for everybody else.
>>>One of the great things about Usenet that make it better than all the
>>>cheap imitations is that it's fundamentally a bit silly.
>>Sure. But a lot of groups have got to the point where there is NO on-topic
>>discussion, it's just all a big private joke/hate campaign (depending on
>>taste of inhabitants).
>My followup is addressed specifically to A B; no one else comment before
>he posts his followup.
>Dear A B,
>Now that you're an experienced Usenet user of all of two months, what is
>the solution to the problem of lack of on-topic discussion when one
>encounters a newsgroup whose topic, as suggested by the group's name,
>is of interest to the user but the ongoing discussion is not?
>If you don't understand the fundamental nature of Usenet, you're just
>not the right guy to be lecturing us.
First of all, vast majority of groups on Usenet, or ANYWHERE for that
matter, contain people that have nothing better to do in their lives
than running their mealy mouths.
If you force-remove the "undesirable" posts, there will be very little
left of Usenet or any blog for that matter.
Usenet is just the most sophisticated wire-web of hundreds of thousands
of Usenet servers carrying whatever information you have to deliver.
If you have no creative ideas, you will be whining all day long, which
is what you truly are.
Usenet, as such, has absolutely nothing to do with your stupidity.
But, at the same time, it is the most resilient and fully distributed
information distribution system with tens of thousands of topic,
whatever you can imagine.
The purpose of Usenet is:
THE FACILITATION OF DISCUSSIONS.
Period. Full stop. Bas.
All these sick and miserable nazi "moderators" are just a bunch of
utter nobodies, driven by the inferiority complex, and that is
exactly why they crave to dominate over others.
ALL "moderators" are sick.
Usenet is about the last resourt for new fresh ideas of ANY kind.
Simple as that.
nat
>A B <a...@a.uk> wrote:
>>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>A B <a...@a.uk> wrote:
>>>>"Peter J Ross" <p...@example.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>on Sat, 6 Nov 2010 18:36:03 -0000, A B <a...@a.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>"Peter J Ross" <p...@example.invalid> wrote on 5th November:
>>>If you don't understand the fundamental nature of Usenet, you're just
>>>not the right guy to be lecturing us.
>>First, you're about 19 months out, for what it matters.
>>Second, I've no idea, except to try and round up more people who are
>>interested in the topic. What was your point?
>Wrong answer.
>If you don't see discussion of interest to you, start some without
>waiting for others.
Correct. Just get creative for once in your life time.
Usenet gives you a mike to speak up unlike anything out there.
Because virtually EVERYTHING out there is totally censored,
including all the boards, blogs and you name it, where some blood
boiling and utterly intoleract cock sucker, trying to prove to himself
that he is something, simply destroys whatever you have to say, if he
does not like it, being the intolerant nazi he is.
>Don't participate in off topic discussion.
Correct.
No one in the whole world forces anyone to read, and especiall reply,
to posts they do not like or do not agree with.
What is this very desire to get into someone else's face and life.
Who da funk these lil nazi suckazoids they thing they are?
nat
>"Peter J Ross" <p...@example.invalid> wrote on 7th November:
>> I can write RFDs, you know. (Remember the one Skirvin plagiarised?)
>>
>> But of course I can't submit an RFD under the current rules, which
>> amount to a kind of Test Act.
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_Act>
The very idea of writing some "rfd" is sick.
Especially to be subnitted to some power hungry gang of censoring
nazis, just like this bamby puppet theatre is.
For one thing, that "rfd" is not a word of god and no one is even obliged
to read it.
But it was historically used like some kind of usenet law for a specific
group.
Groups are just hinters and pointers to the general direction of some
group, and that is ALL they are good for. In fact, if group is named
in some meaningful way, there is no need for an "rfd".
WHO is going to "enforce" that stupid delusional writing called RFD?
On WHAT basis?
Under WHAT authority?
In WHOSE interests?
For what benefits?
How do they know what is to be allowed or not?
What is the very concept of democracy, for funk's sake?
nat
Those are not the rules.
They are nothing more than concoctions, created by some intolerant
totalitarian dicators, just like yourself, thinking that what THEY
have to say is something more than a dead mosquito fart in the scheme
of things.
Gitit?
Dave Sill
> Those are not the rules.
> They are nothing more than concoctions, created by some intolerant
> totalitarian dicators, just like yourself, thinking that what THEY have
> to say is something more than a dead mosquito fart in the scheme of
> things.
>
> Gitit?
Wait a minute... You're saying dead mosquitoes can fart?
-Dave
nat
>> Gitit?
What I am saying is your relative significance in the scheme of things.
nat
>>> Gitit?
Read this:
http://www.antimatrix.
org/Convert/Articles_AntiMatrix/Power_Elite/Antimatrix-Power-Elite-index.html
It is about you and people like you and the whole power structure
of Usenet and this sucky big-8 concentration camp.
nat
>In article <ibf2h2$eul$7...@solani.org>, n...@land.invalid (nat) wrote:
>>In article <8k0gn4...@mid.individual.net>, Dave Sill <da...@sill.org> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 21:17:32 +0000, nat wrote:
>>>> Those are not the rules.
>>>> They are nothing more than concoctions, created by some intolerant
>>>> totalitarian dicators, just like yourself, thinking that what THEY have
>>>> to say is something more than a dead mosquito fart in the scheme of
>>>> things.
>>>> Gitit?
>>>Wait a minute... You're saying dead mosquitoes can fart?
>>What I am saying is your relative significance in the scheme of things.
Btw, http://antimatrix.org has a sophisticate search engine.
So you can look up any issue that comes to your mind
as it has already been discussed.
The search engine even does associative search, or search for synonyms,
in case you did not quite enter the right thing.
That site has a complete history of Usenet and all the major battles,
issues, players and you name it.
No need to waste your life peddling some crap now.
It has been done already.
Peter J Ross
Freyburger <dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Kathy Morgan (former co-chairman of the Bambies) and Steve Bonine
(current chief lapdog of the NGP treehouse) also served as moderators
of SMM. I congratulate them for tolerating the kooks much longer than
I was able to. I think I remember advising at least one of them that
being a moderator of that group would not be a pleasant experience.
But never mind all that. Doctor Who was being discussed in this
thread, so I'd be interested to know how upset you are that the Nazis
have never been depicted favourably in that programme.
THe Daleks (who have regularly been used as a metaphor for the Nazis)
are never depicted as nice polite people who are fit to moderate
Usenet groups, are they? Even when, in 2006 (IIRC), they were
discovered to have a kind of religion, the Cult of Skaro (a parallel
to your revolting Asatru cult), they were still despicable - just like
you.
--
PJR :-)
Peter J Ross
<s...@pobox.com> wrote:
> A B wrote:
>> "Peter J Ross" <p...@example.invalid> wrote on 7th November:
>>> I can write RFDs, you know. (Remember the one Skirvin plagiarised?)
>>>
>>> But of course I can't submit an RFD under the current rules, which
>>> amount to a kind of Test Act.
>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_Act>
>>
>> What ARE the current rules? And which one's bothering you?
>
> Dave filled you in on the current rules, although his posting of the URL
> wrapped on my system. If you go to http://www.big-8.org/ I don't think
> you'll have any problem finding the information you seek.
>
> As for what's bothering PJR, I suspect you're missing a bit of context.
> I will brutally summarize it for you in a few sentences; you can find
> as much more detail as you want at the above site or in archives of
> news.groups from the period.
Obviously, the news.groups archives will express all points of view,
while big-8.org will express only one.
> The current administration of the big-8
> Usenet hierarchies is a board that was instituted about five years ago.
Correct. There are of course various provisos about how much attention
is, or should be, paid to the "board".
> As with any transition, there are individuals who are unhappy about
> the new organization,
On the whole, I think the new organisation is OK, though there are far
more Bambies than the amount of work justifies.
> the people in the new organization,
Skirvin and Kamens are the only individuals I object to. I'm
a little disappointed by Bartolich's recent behaviour, but neither he
nor any other Bamby, except those two disgusting facilitators of
bigotry and stupidity, needs to be sacked, IMO.
> decisions made by those people,
I do make a point of mentioning when their decisions are right.
> and life in general.
Life in general is great! It's only Big-8 management that's broken.
> It is impossible to know if "I
> can't submit an RFD under the current rules" is a genuine attempt to
> express an opinion or an excuse for not doing any real work.
It's perfectly possible to know. Do you want me to draft an RFD and
send it to you?
I believe I can trust you not to "do a Skirvin" by passing the draft
off as your own work.
--
PJR :-)
Peter J Ross
> "Peter J Ross" <p...@example.invalid> wrote on 7th November:
>> I can write RFDs, you know. (Remember the one Skirvin plagiarised?)
>>
>> But of course I can't submit an RFD under the current rules, which
>> amount to a kind of Test Act.
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_Act>
>
> What ARE the current rules? And which one's bothering you?
In order to propose a new Big-8 group, I'm required to direct
discussion to news.groups.proposals, a newsgroups whose very existence
I believe is harmful to Usenet.
In my opinion (and not only mine), news.groups.proposals was
newgrouped for the sole purpose of excluding "dissidents" from
discussions to which they would otherwise contribute opinions that the
Bambies didn't share.
Morally, news.groups.proposals and Hipcrime flooding are equal: they
are both intended to prevent discussion on Usenet that some people
don't like.
--
PJR :-)
Peter J Ross
Bartolich <alexander...@gmx.at> wrote:
> Peter J Ross wrote:
>> Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> I have little personal interest in Dr. Who but I would love to see
>>> someone succeed at restarting the group. In fact, if you really are
>>> willing to take on the project, I'll help by writing and submitting the RFD.
>>
>> I can write RFDs, you know. (Remember the one Skirvin plagiarised?)
>>
>> But of course I can't submit an RFD under the current rules, which
>> amount to a kind of Test Act.
>><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_Act>
>>
>> But if *you* choose to submit an RFD, I'll be happy to be listed as a
>> proposed moderator, and to assist in drafting etc.
>
> We already had that situation. You did not deliver.
>
> Message-ID: <hg3q8r$2o1$1...@news.albasani.net>
> # Subject: RFD: comp.ai.jair.* moderated (change moderator or remove) LAST CALL FOR COMMENTS
> # [...]
> # Peter J Ross has volunteered to take over moderation of these group.
> # [...]
I don't remember even reading that post. Was I here at the time?
My recollection is that I was persuaded (possibly by you) that the
group needed a moderator who was familiar with the topic, but perhaps
I didn't make that clear.
The Doctor Who situation is quite different, since I probably know as
much about the TV programme and its various audio and print spinoffs
as anybody else who's posting to Usenet. A nice clean copy of an early
reprint of /Doctor Who and the Auton Invasion/ (with the original
cover, not the slightly modified one) popped through my letterbox this
very morning (£4.00 + postage from a retailer I'm not going to
recommend until I've bought all the stuff from them that I want.)
In my opinion, a reactivated RADW.info would be beneficial to the
other DW newsgroups (RADW and RADW.moderated, as well as some groups
in uk.* and alt.*), since it would naturally provide those groups with
topics for discussion.
Anyway, I was talking to Steve, not to you. I've already caught you
misrepresenting me in another post, and I'm not at all sure you're
interested in having a genuine discussion.
--
PJR :-)
Peter J Ross
Which groups?
I think it's time to descend from impressive generalisations to case
studies.
Apart from news.groups (which is obviously stuffed full of on-topic
discussion at present, partly thanks to you), I'm currently reading
only alt.arts.poetry.comments and rec.arts.drwho with any close
attention.
AAPC has been seriously undermined by plagiarism, so that people are
unwilling to post their work, and by a persistent campaign of
off-topic crossposting by certain disgruntled kooks which has made the
group difficult to read without quite sophisticated filters. I think
the group is pretty well dead at present, but IMO it needs only half a
dozen committed posters to revive it. I can *name* the half dozen
posters, but I can't get them all together at the same time!
RADw has been overflowing with off-topic trollery and crossposting for
at least a decade, but an on-topic post is still always sure to
receive knowledgeable on-topic responses. The group is less healthy
than it used to be, with a few high-profile contributers having
disappeared or switched to Web forums, but it's certainly salvageable.
There's also a moderated Doctor Who discussion group (different from
the *.info group that's recently been rmgrouped), but I stopped
reading it ages ago since there were hardly any posts and the few
posts that were there were all very bland.
There's no moderated Usenet poetry group, and informal suggestions for
creating one have been overwhelming rejected by Usenet poets in the
past.
A while ago, I provided a set of private poetry newsgroups for about a
dozen subscribers, but I gave up after a few months, partly because of
lack of interest, and partly because keeping a news server running
24/7 required too much work for one not-very-wealthy individual.
THose are some of my case studies. Where are yours?
--
PJR :-)
Peter J Ross
Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
A B may not realise it, but you're being nicer to him than I've ever
seen you be to anybody you disagree with. Are they putting drugs in
your beer? :-)
--
PJR :-)
Peter J Ross
Freyburger <dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I am active
Yes, the fact that NeoNazi scum like you are active is one of Usenet's
disadvantages. We can't persuade you to leave, and we don't descend to
the tactics your kind prefer, such as netkkkopping and threats of
real-life violence.
OTOH, we decent people can be as rude to you as we like on Usenet and
there's absolutely nothing you can do to stop us!
--
PJR :-)
Peter J Ross
<s...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Steve Bonine wrote:
>> Peter J Ross wrote:
>
>>> If I'd been here, I'd have volunteered to moderate
>>> rec.arts.drwho.info. I'd had my eye on the group for years, and I'm
>>> horriefied that it disappeared when I wasn't looking.
>>
>> If your horror is real, all you need to do is submit an RFD to restart
>> the group. The MVI was effectively a proposal for a new group anyway in
>> the sense that the newsgroup had been dead for so long that anyone who
>> wants it to succeed is starting from scratch and needs to do all the
>> things that the proponent of a new newsgroup would need to do.
>>
>> I have little personal interest in Dr. Who but I would love to see
>> someone succeed at restarting the group. In fact, if you really are
>> willing to take on the project, I'll help by writing and submitting the
>> RFD.
>
> Peter J Ross wrote:
>
> > Now fuck off back to your treehouse.
>
> I give up.
Why do you give up? Does the fact that the lying lamer Bartolich needs
to fuck off back to his treehouse discourage you from joining me in
trying to do something good for Usenet?
--
PJR :-)
Peter J Ross
> "Kathy Morgan" <kmo...@spamcop.net> wrote on 8th November:
>>A B <a...@a.uk> wrote:
>>> I'd be only too glad to see the pornographers, pyramid schemes, full-time
>>> flamers, Nigerian con-men etc. etc. etc. banished into outer darkness,
>>> and I
>>> think that would be the single best thing you could do to attract new
>>> users.
>>
>> If you're seeing a lot of those types of messages, then you're using a
>> poorly run server. A well run server is going to filter most of that
>> out; I truly can't remember the last time I saw anything like that in
>> any of the groups I use. There are some free and low-cost servers that
>> do an excellent job of filtering and are well-connected so that they
>> seldom miss a legitimate article. For free servers, I'd recommend
>> Eternal September <http://www.eternal-september.org> and Albasani
>> <http://www.albasani.net>. For low-cost but not free, try
>> Individual.net <http://www.individual.net>, which costs 10 Euros per
>> year. (That's currently approximately US $14.)
>
> Thanks for the tips. I'll try that when I have time. I'm just using my
> ISP's news server at present - they pretty much let everyone get on with it.
> The main problem is a site (presumably pornographic, from its resemblance to
> a more descriptively titled one a while back) that posts dozens of laconic
> ads a day, each from a different name and Gmail address. Different subject
> line, too. A bit beyond Windows Mail's filtering capabilities.
Don't blame Usenet for the defects of the newsreader you're using.
If I switch off my filters. I see some porn spam with ALL CAPS subject
lines. Is Windows Mail really so bad that it can't filter out ALL CAPS
subject lines?
Ny preferred filter kills every article whose subject line doesn't
include at least one lower case letter, a-z. After a couple of years,
I'm not aware of any false positives.
But the filter is matching a handful of posts a week, not dozens a
day, so your ISP's server is probably at fault. But beware of servers,
such as eternal-september.org or albasani.net, which filter articles
which are *not* spam because they think their users don't want to read
them. You may find their extra filters useful, or you may not.
The admins of those servers do admirable work with no profit and
little thanks, but IMO they don't make it quite as clear as I'd like
to their users that they operate a scheme of benevolent censorship.
--
PJR :-)
Peter J Ross
<n...@land.invalid> wrote:
Sometimes Bloxy's/Nukleus/Librarian/nat/whatever posts something I
agree with.
This is one of those times.
However, it's ironic that B/N/L/n/whatever rarely contributes any
on-topic posts to Usenet himself, but instead contributes vast
quatities of bot-generated spew whenever he goes into Childish Tantrum
Mode.
--
PJR :-)
nat
>> Peter J Ross wrote:
>> I give up.
You, personally, can not possibly do anything useful to Usenet
because you are the same kind of power hungry maniac, craving for
power, and that is precisely why you are thinking in terms of
"moderating" things.
But, deep inside, you crave for power, which you will never get
just because you have too big of a mouth, producing nothing more
than hot air.
You do not have a SINGLE genuine idea that can possibly improve
anything on Usenet.
You do not know what to do.
And you are simply jealous of thse suckers because THEM and not you
are in this so colled elite of big sucking 8.
THEY dictate what is what and who is who, and not you.
Simple as that.
Peter J Ross
<n...@land.invalid> wrote:
It must be upsetting, in your black-and-white world, to learn that
some of us support the Bambies when we think they're right and oppose
them when we think they're wrong.
For the benefit of more intelligent readers than you, I suppose it
worth mentioning that I disapprove of moderated Usenet discussion
groups (with rare exceptions for special cases, such as
comp.windows.*), but think that unmoderated discussion is facilitated
if there are moderated newsgroups where trustworthy announcements can
appear.
--
PJR :-)
Alexander Bartolich
It seems that you have lost track of your insults.
http://www.big-8.org/wiki/Moderation_policy_for_news.groups.proposals
# The_news.groups.proposals_moderation_team
# [...]
# Head Moderator: Steve Bonine
--
host -t mx moderators.isc.org
Steve Crook
Message-Id: <slrnidoel...@pjr.gotdns.org>:
> The admins of those servers do admirable work with no profit and
> little thanks, but IMO they don't make it quite as clear as I'd like
> to their users that they operate a scheme of benevolent censorship.
I was just having a snooze when you triggered the sirens and rotating
amber lights in my filter development facility by using the "c" word in
a serious newsgroup. Not to worry though, my dreams were already
conscious-pricked with the knowledge that my readers can't see Jeff
Relf's HTML posts or Greg Hall's misplaced binaries and cunning
supersedes.
The no-mans-land between spam filtering and censorship is only patrolled
by meek admins who sometimes cross the censorship boundary to urinate
on those they don't like. Sometimes innocents get caught in the
splash-back.
Dave Sill
> Morally, news.groups.proposals and Hipcrime flooding are equal: they are
> both intended to prevent discussion on Usenet that some people don't
> like.
No, NGP is intended to keep discussion on topic. Like/dislike has nothing
to do with it. Pointless, repetitious flames and silly cascades do not
contribute to the discussion about creating new groups.
You won't agree, of course.
-Dave
Steve Bonine
> Do you want me to draft an RFD and
> send it to you?
No. You perhaps missed the article in which I said, "I give up."
Peter J Ross
wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 16:25:38 +0000, Peter J Ross wrote:
>
>> Morally, news.groups.proposals and Hipcrime flooding are equal: they are
>> both intended to prevent discussion on Usenet that some people don't
>> like.
>
> No, NGP is intended to keep discussion on topic.
Yawn. Discussion in NGP typically consists of a lot of circle-jerking
by people who know nothing about Usenet but know that they don't want
to read things they might not like - as you well know.
> Like/dislike has nothing
> to do with it. Pointless, repetitious flames and silly cascades do not
> contribute to the discussion about creating new groups.
So you'll have a lot of message-ids for "pointless, repetitious flames
and silly cascades" in threads where creating new groups is being
discussed.
> You won't agree, of course.
Similarly, I don't agree that the sun rises in the evening and sets in
the morning.
I don't think you're a fool, Mr Sill, but your loyalty to scum like
Skirvin and your support for his vandalism of the Big-8 are foolish.
--
PJR :-)
Peter J Ross
Bartolich <alexander...@gmx.at> wrote:
> Peter J Ross wrote:
>> Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> Peter J Ross wrote:
>>>
>>> > Now fuck off back to your treehouse.
>>>
>>> I give up.
>>
>> Why do you give up? Does the fact that the lying lamer Bartolich needs
>> to fuck off back to his treehouse discourage you from joining me in
>> trying to do something good for Usenet?
>
> It seems that you have lost track of your insults.
>
> http://www.big-8.org/wiki/Moderation_policy_for_news.groups.proposals
> # The_news.groups.proposals_moderation_team
> # [...]
> # Head Moderator: Steve Bonine
Baffling.
Some self-important crap on the Bamby Web site is being cited as an
example of one of my insults.
Why don't you just resign? You're clearly an impediment to good
relations between Bambies and non-Bambies.
--
PJR :-)
Peter J Ross
<s...@pobox.com> wrote:
The article I missed was the one in which you and the Bartolich kook
were revealed to be the same person, since he's the one who needs to
fuck off back to his treehouse, if all he can do in news.groups is lie
and troll.
But of course, submitting an RFD would require a small amount of work
even if I wrote all the text for you, so it's understandable that
you've started making excuses.
--
PJR :-)
Peter J Ross
<st...@mixmin.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 18:49:32 +0000, Peter J Ross wrote in
> Message-Id: <slrnidoel...@pjr.gotdns.org>:
>
>> The admins of those servers do admirable work with no profit and
>> little thanks, but IMO they don't make it quite as clear as I'd like
>> to their users that they operate a scheme of benevolent censorship.
>
> I was just having a snooze when you triggered the sirens and rotating
> amber lights in my filter development facility by using the "c" word in
> a serious newsgroup.
At least I used it oxymoronically, not merely moronically.
> Not to worry though, my dreams were already
> conscious-pricked with the knowledge that my readers can't see Jeff
> Relf's HTML posts or Greg Hall's misplaced binaries and cunning
> supersedes.
I haven't seen posts by Jeff or Greg for a long time. In fact, apart
from a brief display of teenage foot-stomping by Lamie Baillie in
alt.config, I've seen hardly any traditional kookery since my return
to Usenet after my reinvigorating vacation.
> The no-mans-land between spam filtering and censorship is only patrolled
> by meek admins who sometimes cross the censorship boundary to urinate
> on those they don't like. Sometimes innocents get caught in the
> splash-back.
It's not your filters that are doing the "benevolent censorship" I was
thinking of.
--
PJR :-)
Dave Sill
> So you'll have a lot of message-ids for "pointless, repetitious flames
> and silly cascades" in threads where creating new groups is being
> discussed.
Gosh, I had a big ol' list of them saved up from years ago when we
created NGP, but it didn't survive my last round of housekeeping.
Admittedly, the situation in news.groups has improved since those days.
That might have something to do with the fact that NGP's creation meant
that anyone who didn't want to read NG who didn't have to, but I can't
prove it.
-Dave
nat
>In news.groups on Thu, 11 Nov 2010 19:08:39 GMT, nat
><n...@land.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <slrnidodm...@pjr.gotdns.org>, peadar...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>In news.groups on Sun, 07 Nov 2010 14:08:42 -0600, Steve Bonine
>>><s...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>> Steve Bonine wrote:
>>>>> Peter J Ross wrote:
>>>> Peter J Ross wrote:
>>>> > Now fuck off back to your treehouse.
>>>> I give up.
>>>Why do you give up? Does the fact that the lying lamer Bartolich needs
>>>to fuck off back to his treehouse discourage you from joining me in
>>>trying to do something good for Usenet?
>> You, personally, can not possibly do anything useful to Usenet
>> because you are the same kind of power hungry maniac, craving for
>> power, and that is precisely why you are thinking in terms of
>> "moderating" things.
Do you understand this, Mr. Hop-Position?
>> But, deep inside, you crave for power, which you will never get
>> just because you have too big of a mouth, producing nothing more
>> than hot air.
>> You do not have a SINGLE genuine idea that can possibly improve
>> anything on Usenet.
Or DO you?
What would that be?
What kind of ideas do you have to FACILITATE the mechanisms and
power of Usenet?
>> You do not know what to do.
Or DO you?
>> And you are simply jealous of those suckers, because THEM and not you
>> are in this so colled elite of big sucking 8.
Is THAT true, by ANY humble chance?
>> THEY dictate what is what and who is who, and not you.
>> Simple as that.
>It must be upsetting,
Not really.
You see, people like you are so profoundly predictable...
>in your black-and-white world,
My "black" and "white" world, which is an insult, implying totalitarian
dictatorship, is this:
There is no compromise between Truth and lie.
In that sense, yes, my world is "black" and "white".
I do not sell my balls no matter how much money anybody promises me.
There isn't enough money in this world to make me accept a lie as
though it were Truth.
> to learn that some of us
Do you see this, sucker?
Who is "us"?
Why do you need to bring someone else into equasion?
You mean you can POSSIBLY justify ANYTHING via majority opinion?
Do you realize no one even cares you exist, despite the fact, you
claim it is "us"?
You need to learn to stand on your own feet
and face the music, whatever the consequences are.
> support the Bambies when we
One more time:
There is no such a thing as "we" in your life.
You came here alone.
And you will die alone.
And praise the lord they will even let you die alone,
instead of standing by your bed and asking you to sign some
stupid paper.
There is no "us".
There is only YOU and ME.
> think they're right and oppose
>them when we think they're wrong.
"Right" and "wrong",
"black" and "white",
"virtuous" and "evil".
Do you see this, sucker?
Secondly, how many years did you spend already being an hop-position?
And what is the result?
They keep pissing you into your face?
>For the benefit of more intelligent readers than you,
I know, I know. You do suck full time.
> I suppose it
>worth mentioning that I disapprove of moderated Usenet discussion
>groups
Then why did you even try to get to be a "moderator" yourself?
>(with rare exceptions for special cases,
There isn't such a thing as "rare" exceptions.
Once you make some exception, it is like sucking blood from someone.
You are BOUND to go crazy, wanting more and more and more.
"The power corrupts,
and absolute power corrupts ABSOLUTELY".
Ever heard?
>such as
>comp.windows.*), but think that unmoderated discussion is facilitated
>if there are moderated newsgroups where trustworthy announcements can
>appear.
ALL crap.
I can comprehend the "moderated" group as long as they are private,
like being owned by some company and its "policy".
But...
As long as some group has broad public interest, "moderation" kills
the very idea of democracy.
I have seen some groups really spammed by all sorts of salesman,
selling you watches, pussy in the sky with diamonds, and you name it.
Never had a problem with it personally.
The very subject says it. I do not even have to read that crap.
To me, spam, is a commercial advertisement, and not merely repeating
some stupid thing. That is not spam. That is just someone being
desperate enough to try to tell something to the whole world.
And how do you know there are no people who would like to read it?
HOW?
Is "moderator" some kind of God, all knowing?
How do you know what that sicko is going to remove so you never have
a chance of seeing it?
What is the problem with pushing the "next" button on your newsreader?
What are you peddling here?
ALL your "criticism" is simply laughable.
Bambies have the "real deal", the PGP key,
without which you can just piss against the wind.
The can just issue a control message and some group becomes "moderated",
regardless of that sucky "RFD" bullshit.
What are you going to do?
Suck, just like you did for YEARS on?
And THEN what?
What has changed on Usenet as a result of your participation?
What has been improved?
What has been understood?
What has bee facilitated?
What has been clarified?
nat
>In news.groups on Thu, 11 Nov 2010 19:36:15 +0000 (UTC), Alexander
>Bartolich <alexander...@gmx.at> wrote:
>> Peter J Ross wrote:
>>> Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>> Peter J Ross wrote:
>>>> > Now fuck off back to your treehouse.
>>>> I give up.
>>> Why do you give up? Does the fact that the lying lamer Bartolich needs
>>> to fuck off back to his treehouse discourage you from joining me in
>>> trying to do something good for Usenet?
>> It seems that you have lost track of your insults.
>> http://www.big-8.org/wiki/Moderation_policy_for_news.groups.proposals
>> # The_news.groups.proposals_moderation_team
>> # [...]
>> # Head Moderator: Steve Bonine
>Baffling.
>Some self-important crap on the Bamby Web site is being cited as an
>example of one of my insults.
>Why don't you just resign?
Do you see how stoopid you are?
What is there to "resign"?
What are those "chairs" but a myth,
a pussy in the sky with diamonds these sickos are pipe dreaming about?
>You're clearly an impediment to good
>relations between Bambies and non-Bambies.
How there can be "good relations" beteen Adolp Hitler and others?
nat
Sez who?
GOD?
>You won't agree, of course.
Do YOU agree with this crap?
>-Dave
nat
First of all, to create ngp as a "moderated" group, thus having a total
control of what is to bee seen and said, is nothing more than a
totalitarian sickness.
If some group is being proposed, you can not have censorship mechanism,
selecting the "desirable" information.
What would happen to elections if someone controlled what is or what
is not to be said about some candidate?
Simple as that.
>-Dave
Steve Bonine
> In news.groups on Thu, 11 Nov 2010 15:49:01 -0500, Steve Bonine
> <s...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> Peter J Ross wrote:
>>
>>> Do you want me to draft an RFD and
>>> send it to you?
>>
>> No. You perhaps missed the article in which I said, "I give up."
>>
>> <8jofac...@mid.individual.net>
>
> The article I missed was the one in which you and the Bartolich kook
> were revealed to be the same person, since he's the one who needs to
> fuck off back to his treehouse, if all he can do in news.groups is lie
> and troll.
I have respect and admiration for Alexander. I often do not agree with
him, but he has demonstrated his dedication by investing actual effort
into Usenet. Real work. Time. Something I've not seen you do. When
you insult him, I draw certain conclusion from that. One of them is
that you can not disagree without descending into the "fuck off" realm.
Another conclusion that can be drawn from your recent contributions to
news.groups and from your past behavior is that you're not serious about
the Dr. Who group and you're just trolling. I can't be sure of that,
but the evidence is compelling. There's just too much history of your
offering to do something and then finding excuses why you can't follow
through.
> But of course, submitting an RFD would require a small amount of work
> even if I wrote all the text for you, so it's understandable that
> you've started making excuses.
I did make the offer to assist you with the Dr. Who group, and I was
tempted to stand by it. But further reflection places me into the
position of Charlie Brown and the football. I'm afraid you'll spend a
half hour writing an RFD, I'll submit it, and you'll disappear leaving
me with the project of trying to revive a newsgroup on a topic that I'm
not that interested in.
I stand by my "I give up." You're not going to shame me into making a
stupid decision. If I commit to trying to revive the Dr. Who group,
I'll follow through to the best of my ability. I am not going to take
on the project with a partner who I don't trust and whose idea of
disagreement is to hurl personal insults.
Alexander Bartolich
> Alexander Bartolich <alexander...@gmx.at> wrote:
>> Peter J Ross wrote:
>>> Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>> Peter J Ross wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Now fuck off back to your treehouse.
>>>>
>>>> I give up.
>>>
>>> Why do you give up? Does the fact that the lying lamer Bartolich needs
>>> to fuck off back to his treehouse discourage you from joining me in
>>> trying to do something good for Usenet?
>>
>> It seems that you have lost track of your insults.
>>
>> http://www.big-8.org/wiki/Moderation_policy_for_news.groups.proposals
>> # The_news.groups.proposals_moderation_team
>> # [...]
>> # Head Moderator: Steve Bonine
>
> Baffling.
>
> Some self-important crap on the Bamby Web site is being cited as an
> example of one of my insults.
As far as I know, "treehouse" is a derogatory term for moderated group
news.groups.proposals. You seem to think that showing disrespect towards
this group does not affect your relationship with the head moderator of
NGP.
> Why don't you just resign? You're clearly an impediment to good
> relations between Bambies and non-Bambies.
That's very flattering. But actually the policies of the B8MB had been
set up long before I joined their ranks.
nat
>Peter J Ross wrote:
>> Alexander Bartolich <alexander...@gmx.at> wrote:
>>> Peter J Ross wrote:
>>>> Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>>> Peter J Ross wrote:
>>>>> > Now fuck off back to your treehouse.
>>>>> I give up.
>>>> Why do you give up? Does the fact that the lying lamer Bartolich needs
>>>> to fuck off back to his treehouse discourage you from joining me in
>>>> trying to do something good for Usenet?
>>> It seems that you have lost track of your insults.
>>> http://www.big-8.org/wiki/Moderation_policy_for_news.groups.proposals
>>> # The_news.groups.proposals_moderation_team
>>> # [...]
>>> # Head Moderator: Steve Bonine
>> Baffling.
>> Some self-important crap on the Bamby Web site is being cited as an
>> example of one of my insults.
>As far as I know, "treehouse" is a derogatory term for moderated group
>news.groups.proposals. You seem to think that showing disrespect towards
>this group does not affect your relationship with the head moderator of
>NGP.
The ngp group can not possibly be "moderated", especially when you,
totalitarian fools, have the last say on what appears in that group.
The ngp and news.admin.moderation is probably some of the most
disgusting bits of your "contribution".
The news.admin.moderation group was "voted" on at least 3 times,
and with over 100 of "yes" votes. But that sicko Tim Skirvin, just
to show how important he is, pushed through the "moderated" version
of it, while the original "proposals" were non "moderated".
You won't be able to wash away THIS kind of ugliness from your
hands. NEVER.
>> Why don't you just resign? You're clearly an impediment to good
>> relations between Bambies and non-Bambies.
>That's very flattering. But actually the policies of the B8MB had been
>set up long before I joined their ranks.
What "policies"?
What "chairs"?
What "vice-chairs"?
Are you merely a bunch of megalomaniacs, trying to make those
mole hills look like Himalayan mountains?
What is the need to be obscessed with all those idiotic titles,
meaning nothing at the end?
Is THAT your contribution to Usenet?
Wtf are you doing here, and for years at that?
Can I see a SINGLE thing that actually improved something?
Kathy Morgan
> I was just having a snooze when you triggered the sirens and rotating
> amber lights in my filter development facility by using the "c" word in
> a serious newsgroup. Not to worry though, my dreams were already
> conscious-pricked with the knowledge that my readers can't see Jeff
> Relf's HTML posts or Greg Hall's misplaced binaries and cunning
> supersedes.
Gee, maybe I'm the one using the wrong server, since Individual.net does
let Jeff Relf post. Of course, I don't know if they carry his HTML
posts or only plain text postings, since I've long since learned to kill
his posts and followups to them...
--
Kathy
nat
>Steve Crook <st...@mixmin.net> wrote:
>
>> I was just having a snooze when you triggered the sirens and rotating
>> amber lights in my filter development facility by using the "c" word in
>> a serious newsgroup. Not to worry though, my dreams were already
>> conscious-pricked with the knowledge that my readers can't see Jeff
>> Relf's HTML posts or Greg Hall's misplaced binaries and cunning
>> supersedes.
>
>Gee, maybe I'm the one using the wrong server, since Individual.net does
>let Jeff Relf post.
Why not?
Brrrrr...
The most disgusting, guilt manipulating trip imaginable, aka
Da Best oF Kathy Morgan witch.
> Of course, I don't know if they carry his HTML
>posts
Yep, pump it up. Guilt trip ALWAYS work, don't they?
>or only plain text postings, since I've long since learned to kill
>his posts and followups to them...
Uhu. Which obviously implies that he is such an obviously "bad"
guy, that you don't even have to use any other arguments, that
make ANY sense to even zombies.
Hey, this big-sucking-8 "board" and "high commition" is really
something special, ain't it? What a contribution to Usenet!
Junior
> In article <1jrt9k7.7gfmx51ojjv2yN%kmo...@spamcop.net>, kmo...@spamcop.net (Kathy Morgan) wrote:
>>Steve Crook <st...@mixmin.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I was just having a snooze when you triggered the sirens and rotating
>>> amber lights in my filter development facility by using the "c" word in
>>> a serious newsgroup. Not to worry though, my dreams were already
>>> conscious-pricked with the knowledge that my readers can't see Jeff
>>> Relf's HTML posts or Greg Hall's misplaced binaries and cunning
>>> supersedes.
>>
>>Gee, maybe I'm the one using the wrong server, since Individual.net does
>>let Jeff Relf post.
>
> Why not?
There really is no good reason to not let this guy post to usenet.
I'm talking about Jeff with his HTML and UTF-8. I don't know about
the bins and supersedes that Greg does.
Jeff's posts do not attach files, they link to them with HTML code.
If your news client doesn't support that then his posts are just
like any other text post with a few markup codes. Not really that
hard to read either because it's raw HTML and not multipart.
You can hate this posting format but, you gotta ask; does it hurt
usenet? Not liking someone doesn't sound like a good reason to
prevent their access to usenet. Using newsreader filters is always
an option for anyone. Should he be denied the privilege of annoying
others by having his access blocked? I say no.
Steve Crook
Message-Id: <ibj0ku$rvh$1...@tioat.net>:
> There really is no good reason to not let this guy post to usenet.
> I'm talking about Jeff with his HTML and UTF-8. I don't know about
> the bins and supersedes that Greg does.
It's not Jeff that gets filtered, it's text/html posts that don't
include a text/plain alternative. Usenet has always resisted markup
language in groups that are considered text-only.
> You can hate this posting format but, you gotta ask; does it hurt
> usenet?
In the case of Jeff, no he does no harm. Opening up all groups to HTML
though is a big leap. Browsers are designed to handle it but even they
are constantly patching vulnerabilities.
> Not liking someone doesn't sound like a good reason to prevent their
> access to usenet. Using newsreader filters is always an option for
> anyone. Should he be denied the privilege of annoying others by having
> his access blocked? I say no.
I kind of agree with you but I'm not going to write exceptions into
Cleanfeed just to allow Jeff the privilege of using HTML. If I did,
Jeff would want to post in something different tomorrow because
non-conformity is his pleasure.
Junior
> On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 09:16:14 +0000 (UTC), Junior wrote in
> Message-Id: <ibj0ku$rvh$1...@tioat.net>:
>
>> There really is no good reason to not let this guy post to usenet.
>> I'm talking about Jeff with his HTML and UTF-8. I don't know about
>> the bins and supersedes that Greg does.
> It's not Jeff that gets filtered, it's text/html posts that don't
> include a text/plain alternative. Usenet has always resisted markup
> language in groups that are considered text-only.
Yes but. He takes it so personal. It is a fact, AFAIK, that he isn't
actually blocked anywhere; it's like you said, the text/html setting
is filtering his posts. I tried explaining that to him but you don't
really have a discussion with him. It's sort of a one-way deal.
>> You can hate this posting format but, you gotta ask; does it hurt
>> usenet?
> In the case of Jeff, no he does no harm. Opening up all groups to HTML
> though is a big leap. Browsers are designed to handle it but even they
> are constantly patching vulnerabilities.
>
>> Not liking someone doesn't sound like a good reason to prevent their
>> access to usenet. Using newsreader filters is always an option for
>> anyone. Should he be denied the privilege of annoying others by having
>> his access blocked? I say no.
> I kind of agree with you but I'm not going to write exceptions into
> Cleanfeed just to allow Jeff the privilege of using HTML. If I did,
> Jeff would want to post in something different tomorrow because
> non-conformity is his pleasure.
Jeff has a natural talent for annoying people. Usenet was made for
him. Anyway, you know I'm on his radar because I allowed the html
and then blocked it and then allowed it again. It's my fault so I'll
figure out how to deal with it.
Adam H. Kerman
Nonsense. The Treehouse exists so that Bambi may officially avert its
eyes from perceived to be raucous RFD discussion.
In truth, the Treehouse was proposed as a distraction attempt. Too many
Bambi errors were being pointed out and Bambi preferred not to see the
discussion of its many failings.
David Sill will be unable to point to any silly cascades that distracted
from the core of the socmen herding discussion or the pondscum discussion.
"Flame" has been redefined as rational objections to proposed groups, such
as, "The group is redundant," or "There is no audience," or "I like the
discussion taking place in the current group and I don't want it moved to
the proposed group, which I oppose because it'll be disruptive."
Adam H. Kerman
>Skirvin and Kamens are the only individuals I object to. I'm
>a little disappointed by Bartolich's recent behaviour, but neither he
>nor any other Bamby, except those two disgusting facilitators of
>bigotry and stupidity, needs to be sacked, IMO.
Bartolich prevents users of his News server from participating in certain
proposal discussion due to ham-fisted anti-crossposting rules. Now that
he's Bambi-in-chief, that does indeed make it censorship. It's not recent
behavior. In fact, he started doing it well before he was appointed Bambi.
As far as his contemptuous/superior attitude, one assumes he's had that
since he was a teenage boy, and Peter? Welcome to Usenet.
Adam H. Kerman
>As far as I know, "treehouse" is a derogatory term for moderated group
>news.groups.proposals. You seem to think that showing disrespect towards
>this group does not affect your relationship with the head moderator of
>NGP.
You couldn't be more wrong. No one derogates newsgroups; they aren't people.
"Treehouse" (note capital T) is the hiding place for Bambies and sycophants
from the Usenet community at large. Those who participate have given
official notice to the world that they have their fingers in their ears
and do not wish to hear what they do not wish to hear.
The Usenet community at large lacks respect for those who have barricaded
themselves in the Treehouse.
Steve Bonine, as Treehouse gatekeeper, is a squirrel. His job is to keep
the nuts stored in the Treehouse.
Aatu Koskensilta
> Bartolich prevents users of his News server from participating in certain
> proposal discussion due to ham-fisted anti-crossposting rules. Now that
> he's Bambi-in-chief, that does indeed make it censorship.
I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. How does his new office make the
policy any more or any less censorship than it was before?
--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.kos...@uta.fi)
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
Adam H. Kerman
>>Bartolich prevents users of his News server from participating in certain
>>proposal discussion due to ham-fisted anti-crossposting rules. Now that
>>he's Bambi-in-chief, that does indeed make it censorship.
>I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. How does his new office make the
>policy any more or any less censorship than it was before?
Censorship is committed by official personages. He wasn't an official
person before he became a Bambi, so he was being a pest but not a censor.
All that has changed since becoming a Bambi.
Steve Bonine
> Steve Bonine, as Treehouse gatekeeper, is a squirrel. His job is to keep
> the nuts stored in the Treehouse.
Obviously several have escaped.
nat
>nat wrote:
>> In article <1jrt9k7.7gfmx51ojjv2yN%kmo...@spamcop.net>, kmo...@spamcop.net
> (Kathy Morgan) wrote:
>>>Steve Crook <st...@mixmin.net> wrote:
>>>> I was just having a snooze when you triggered the sirens and rotating
>>>> amber lights in my filter development facility by using the "c" word in
>>>> a serious newsgroup. Not to worry though, my dreams were already
>>>> conscious-pricked with the knowledge that my readers can't see Jeff
>>>> Relf's HTML posts or Greg Hall's misplaced binaries and cunning
>>>> supersedes.
>>>Gee, maybe I'm the one using the wrong server, since Individual.net does
>>>let Jeff Relf post.
>> Why not?
>There really is no good reason to not let this guy post to usenet.
>I'm talking about Jeff with his HTML and UTF-8. I don't know about
>the bins and supersedes that Greg does.
>Jeff's posts do not attach files, they link to them with HTML code.
>If your news client doesn't support that then his posts are just
>like any other text post with a few markup codes. Not really that
>hard to read either because it's raw HTML and not multipart.
>You can hate this posting format but, you gotta ask; does it hurt
>usenet?
This is one of important technical problems with Usenet.
There is really no compelling reason NOT to allow the HMML posts.
If you can read it, fine.
If you can't, just push the next button.
It is the poster's "problem" that he posts in a format some people
can't read because it limits his distribution volume and audience.
Now, I'd like to bring up some issues with Usenet vs. other forms
of communication such as blogs, boards, and you name it.
Advantages of Usenet:
--------------------
1. No single point of failure problems.
Since Usenet articles are available on all the servers simultaneously,
there are hundreds of copies of the same article exist.
Even if your own server goes down, you can just use one of your
alternative servers and you won't miss even a bit of anything.
With board and things like that, the information is available on
a single server. So, if that server goes down or goes out of
business, you are screwed for good. Since no web servers contain
the same information, where do you get the information you used
to get from that server that went out of busines? Well, you'd have
to spend days searching for some replacement board that may or
may not have the information you want.
2. Fully distributed system
This means that even if half of Usenet servers get shut down
for whatever reason, such as nuclear war :), you still have
Usenet functioning.
This means Usenet can not be destroyed in principle.
Even if the biggest servers stop doing NNTP, Usenet still functions
like nothing happened.
3. Reliability.
Usenet can not be "taken out" like some web server, board or blog.
Basically, you can not even destroy any article nowadays. Thanks
to Hippy, very few servers accept cancels or supersedes nowadays.
This means, once the article is written, it is pretty much
GUARANTEED to exist from then on. Not only that, but it is almost
immediately archived by tons of web based usenet archive libraries,
carrying the whole usenet and its history going back for YEARS.
4. No censorship
This is probably the most important aspect of Usenet.
Put aside the "moderated" groups, any article is guaranteed to
exist once it has been written. So, the information can not be
destroyed.
All the arguments about "spam" are just phony excuses, used by
the most intolerant and blood boiling idiots, trying to dictate
to everybody what "should" and what "should not" be there.
This is profoundly undemocratic approach.
It is basically a totalitarian domination trip, imposed by some
Nazi, driven by the inferiority complex.
Yes, I did see plenty of spam attacks, and I mean ATTACKS, and not
just a few spam posts per day, and when I say the attack, I mean
they post THOUSANDS of posts per day. Yes, that IS the problem.
But there are quite a few ways of dealing with it.
If it is THAT bad, the chances are that spammer won't survive for
more than a few days.
Secondly, you can use filters on your newsreader and forget about
that spam even if your group consists of 99% spam.
There is simply no excuse such as "spam".
But... On the other hand, YOU get to decide which information you
want to see and not some power hungry sicko aka dictator, or some
"committee" like these bamby ding dongs, who do not even realize
their place in the scheme of things. They think THEY "control"
the big-8, so it makes them look and feel "important".
But, if they even BEGAN to realize who stands behind it all,
they'd just jump from the biggest bridge there is, realizing their
UTTER insignificance in the scheme of things.
They are nothing more than condoms.
Once used, they are to be thrown into a garbage bin.
And I mean ALL of them, including Russ Allbery and David Lawrence
aka tale.
So, with usenet, you can present ANY kind of ideas, project and
carry out ANY kind of discussion, and you are guaranteed your
work won't simply evaporate, just because of some nazi censor,
"moderating" your point of vew out.
5. Virtually unlimited number of groups to handle any kind of subject
imaginable. Where else will you find such a diversity.
6. Support for virtually any kind of data.
Basically, nothing prevents Usenet to look like ANY web site.
You can have binary data, images, sounds or anything, just on
any web site out there.
There is basically no limitations on what kind of information
Usenet is capable of handling.
nat
>On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 09:16:14 +0000 (UTC), Junior wrote in
>Message-Id: <ibj0ku$rvh$1...@tioat.net>:
>
>> There really is no good reason to not let this guy post to usenet.
>> I'm talking about Jeff with his HTML and UTF-8. I don't know about
>> the bins and supersedes that Greg does.
>It's not Jeff that gets filtered, it's text/html posts that don't
>include a text/plain alternative. Usenet has always resisted markup
>language in groups that are considered text-only.
There is no need for this limitation.
Period.
If you don't like the way some post looks to you, just push the
"next" button on your newsreader.
>> You can hate this posting format but, you gotta ask; does it hurt
>> usenet?
Not a bit. It does not hurt ANYTHING.
>In the case of Jeff, no he does no harm. Opening up all groups to HTML
>though is a big leap.
Not really.
You can do it this very moment, with your very next post.
The problem with it is mostly a problem of control and domination.
Some idiots, and some of them in the position of power, fight the
HTLM articles like it was some kind of most profound "evil", which
is a total nonesence.
>Browsers are designed to handle it but even they
>are constantly patching vulnerabilities.
>
>> Not liking someone doesn't sound like a good reason to prevent their
>> access to usenet. Using newsreader filters is always an option for
>> anyone. Should he be denied the privilege of annoying others by having
>> his access blocked? I say no.
>I kind of agree with you but I'm not going to write exceptions into
>Cleanfeed
This so called cleanfeed is probably one of the most disgusting
forms of censorship, and I have seen it in action. Simply insane.
If you think some "cleanfeed" is going to protect you,
you are just a fool. Because it takes minutes to create any kind
of rule in a censorware to suppress some of the most sensitive
and vitally important issues, and you, as a reader, won't even
know it happened. You simply have no choice and no chance.
You are simply blind, trusting some dictatorware to make the
decisions for you.
> just to allow Jeff the privilege of using HTML. If I did,
>Jeff would want to post in something different tomorrow because
>non-conformity is his pleasure.
So what? Don't read his crap. What's a big deal?
Who is Jess to begin with?
Some fool, craving for attention, that has nothing better to do
in his life than go around and show everybody what a big arse
he is?
Why would ANYONE even pay attention to such small an insignificant
things unless they are on the same wavelenghth, also craving for
some attention, just to prove to themselves they are something?
nat
>Steve Crook wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 09:16:14 +0000 (UTC), Junior wrote in
>> Message-Id: <ibj0ku$rvh$1...@tioat.net>:
>>
>>> There really is no good reason to not let this guy post to usenet.
>>> I'm talking about Jeff with his HTML and UTF-8. I don't know about
>>> the bins and supersedes that Greg does.
>> It's not Jeff that gets filtered, it's text/html posts that don't
>> include a text/plain alternative. Usenet has always resisted markup
>> language in groups that are considered text-only.
>Yes but. He takes it so personal. It is a fact, AFAIK, that he isn't
>actually blocked anywhere; it's like you said, the text/html setting
>is filtering his posts. I tried explaining that to him but you don't
>really have a discussion with him. It's sort of a one-way deal.
Do, don't discuss.
Just forget about him.
Can you learn how to use filters?
You can filter anybody out so well that it does not matter what
version of what they decide to use next to do whatever they want
to do next, just to attract someone's attention, so that discussion
starts revolving around THEM and how "important" they are.
They are just suckers, craving for attention.
Because they are profoundly uncreative.
Because they do not trust themselves that they can actually
produce something of value, something original, something genuine.
Because they condemn themselves for what they are.
Because they were PROGRAMMED to condemn themselves by their
parents, teachers, priests, politicians and you name it.
Because...
Well, because of "fear of survival".
They think unless they behave like everybody else,
just like a sheep in the middle of the herd, where it is "safest",
they risk not to "survive".
>>> You can hate this posting format but, you gotta ask; does it hurt
>>> usenet?
>> In the case of Jeff, no he does no harm. Opening up all groups to HTML
>> though is a big leap. Browsers are designed to handle it but even they
>> are constantly patching vulnerabilities.
>>
>>> Not liking someone doesn't sound like a good reason to prevent their
>>> access to usenet. Using newsreader filters is always an option for
>>> anyone. Should he be denied the privilege of annoying others by having
>>> his access blocked? I say no.
>> I kind of agree with you but I'm not going to write exceptions into
>> Cleanfeed just to allow Jeff the privilege of using HTML. If I did,
>> Jeff would want to post in something different tomorrow because
>> non-conformity is his pleasure.
>
>Jeff has a natural talent for annoying people.
Good.
And you also have "natural talent" for biting his bate.
What forces you to even bother he exists?
> Usenet was made for
>him.
Good. And not only for HIM.
But for EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU.
And be greateful it is this way.
Otherwise, you'd regret it eventually.
> Anyway, you know I'm on his radar because I allowed the html
>and then blocked it and then allowed it again. It's my fault so I'll
>figure out how to deal with it.
There is no "fault".
You are just playing with him like he is playing with you
and others. This is called a Game of Life.
But NO ONE forces you to tolerate or bother about ANYTHING
on Usenet. Just filter them out. No need to even mention it
or bring it up as ANY kind of issue.
Simple, isn't it?
Life is really simple if you trust yourself and your own
intelligence.
WHO told you that you are nothing more than and idiot
or some sheep?
WHY did you accept their ideas?
nat
>Dave Sill <da...@sill.org> wrote:
>>On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 16:25:38 +0000, Peter J Ross wrote:
>>>Morally, news.groups.proposals and Hipcrime flooding are equal: they are
>>>both intended to prevent discussion on Usenet that some people don't
>>>like.
>>No, NGP is intended to keep discussion on topic.
Horseshit, and of the purest grade.
ALL the dictators use the same exact argument to censor, abuse
and destroy ANYTHING that does not fit THEIR agenda, you see.
Because THEY have that big red button of anihilation,
and they are trigger happy to use it instead of a Return key.
>> Like/dislike has nothing
>>to do with it.
Bullshit.
Are you claiming you are some kind of "perfect independent
and utterly neutral observer", having no prejudice of ANY kind?
WHO are you kidding but yourself?
>> Pointless, repetitious flames
Just mind your own business.
WHO forces you to even bother with those "flames"?
And what are people to do if they have all sorts of garbage
on their chest?
You see, you need to be able to EXPRESS those things that bother
you. Otherwise, you will remain sick in your very being until
you die.
But with usenet, it is not like when you walk on some dark
valley and some bandit comes to you with a gun.
No. You can simply filter the sucker out on Usenet.
I do not need any kind of "mommy" to decide for ME what I read,
what I follow up and what am I interested in.
I don't want no Nazi deciding for me what kind of information
I am to read.
You see, you, suckers, live in "democratic" societies.
Your "leaders" forever blabber about "democracy" and "freedom".
But when it comes to the REAL business, that very "democracy"
is the last thing in your mind.
WHY?
Ever thought about it?
WHO runs your miserable lives, Mr. Puppet?
You mean these sickos, calling themselves B8MB?
Just screw them.
Laught at them.
Ridicule them.
Write concice articles to show them how sick they are,
so that even a 5 year old child could see what they are
in effect.
Funken anihilate them in any way you can imagine.
And THAT is how you take back that "freedom" everyone
keeps blabbering about on that idiot box, called TV,
morning to night, filling your heads with lies that do not
exist in reality. The pipe dreams.
>> and silly cascades do not
>>contribute to the discussion about creating new groups.
So what?
WHO forces you to read those cascades?
Do you have enough of a brain power to filter out those people,
that keep engaging in that kind of garbage games?
First of all, ANYONE, who enganges in cascades is basically
a biorobot, a zombie, who can only think in terms of one liners,
the most primitive templates that could be expressed in a single
line of text with average word count of 4.
So, YOU are an idiot if you even bother about those kinds of
idiots. What's YOUR "problem"?
Are you some kind of Jesus Christ to "rid the world of all evil"?
Adolph Hitler?
Joseph Stalin?
Benito Musolini?
Who ARE you?
>>You won't agree, of course.
>Nonsense. The Treehouse exists so that Bambi may officially avert its
>eyes from perceived to be raucous RFD discussion.
>In truth, the Treehouse was proposed as a distraction attempt. Too many
>Bambi errors were being pointed out and Bambi preferred not to see the
>discussion of its many failings.
Sure, as long as THEY control those "moderated" groups where these
things are being discussed, what do you expect as a result?
"Power corrupts.
And absolute power corrupts absolutely."
>David Sill will be unable to point to any silly cascades that distracted
>from the core of the socmen herding discussion or the pondscum discussion.
>"Flame" has been redefined as rational objections to proposed groups, such
>as, "The group is redundant," or "There is no audience," or "I like the
>discussion taking place in the current group and I don't want it moved to
>the proposed group, which I oppose because it'll be disruptive."
Funk. Let them flame all they want.
What seems to be the problem?
Why do you even have to bother to read ANY of their "flames"?
Are you obscessed with it also, just like themselves?
Then WHO is the REAL idiot?
nat
>Peter J Ross <peadar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Skirvin and Kamens are the only individuals I object to. I'm
>>a little disappointed by Bartolich's recent behaviour, but neither he
>>nor any other Bamby, except those two disgusting facilitators of
>>bigotry and stupidity, needs to be sacked, IMO.
>
>Bartolich prevents users of his News server from participating in certain
>proposal discussion due to ham-fisted anti-crossposting rules.
Well, ALL of those power hungry and trigger happy sickos do it all
the time.
Whatever they rationalize about it is just that,
a rationalization and not the real reason.
> Now that
>he's Bambi-in-chief, that does indeed make it censorship.
All power hungry dictators, forever craving for power,
are censors by definition pretty much.
In fact, that is the very reason they crave for power.
It is because of their intolerance.
It is because they have been oppressed in the past.
It is nothing but revenge with the world.
"They screwed me then, and now it is MY turn to screw you all".
Simple as that.
None of it carries even a seed of any kind of rationality,
no matter how much they try to rationalize about it.