Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
OT: Please use newsservers
35 views
Skip to first unread message
Claus Rogge
Feb 6, 2012, 2:56:25 AM2/6/12
to
Google Groups are trying to kill usenet by not exporting messages to
newsservers anymore. We who do not use GG get less than a tenth of the
messages. If you can, please use a newsreader (like Thunderbird) and server.
--
New CD "Breaking Habits"
http://www.cdbaby.com/AlbumDetails.aspx?AlbumID=clausrogge
Music for free:
http://tinyurl.com/73efjm
newsservers anymore. We who do not use GG get less than a tenth of the
messages. If you can, please use a newsreader (like Thunderbird) and server.
--
New CD "Breaking Habits"
http://www.cdbaby.com/AlbumDetails.aspx?AlbumID=clausrogge
Music for free:
http://tinyurl.com/73efjm
Greg D
Feb 6, 2012, 4:51:08 AM2/6/12
to
traffic thru Google. Sad.
Garvin Yee
Feb 6, 2012, 5:55:15 AM2/6/12
to
nearly dead anyways! It's a far easier interface to get
started with, and is still a better system than thunderbird
for displaying new threads versus active threads. The vast
majority of posts are through Google groups.
And I noticed that my messages here didn't show
up in eternal september, but I assumed they were just
having server problems.
If it's intentional, I'd have to say that's pretty insidious,
and destroys yet another avenue of choice.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss......
Greger Hoel
Feb 6, 2012, 9:24:50 AM2/6/12
to
On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 08:56:25 +0100, Claus Rogge
<claus...@spamtrapaon.at> wrote:
> Google Groups are trying to kill usenet by not exporting messages to
> newsservers anymore. We who do not use GG get less than a tenth of the
> messages. If you can, please use a newsreader (like Thunderbird) and
> server.
Ahh... THAT's what's happened! >:-(
<claus...@spamtrapaon.at> wrote:
> Google Groups are trying to kill usenet by not exporting messages to
> newsservers anymore. We who do not use GG get less than a tenth of the
> messages. If you can, please use a newsreader (like Thunderbird) and
> server.
I don't know why they want to kill Usenet, but mission accomplished, I
guess. It certainly kills it for me. R.I.P.
--
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Paul K
Feb 6, 2012, 9:42:46 AM2/6/12
to
On 2/6/12 2:56 AM, Claus Rogge wrote:
> Google Groups are trying to kill usenet by not exporting messages to
> newsservers anymore. We who do not use GG get less than a tenth of the
> messages. If you can, please use a newsreader (like Thunderbird) and
> server.
>
To remind anyone interested: thunderbird and either albasani.net or
> Google Groups are trying to kill usenet by not exporting messages to
> newsservers anymore. We who do not use GG get less than a tenth of the
> messages. If you can, please use a newsreader (like Thunderbird) and
> server.
>
eternal-september.net are all you need to read/write to usenet for
free. Of course, those happy with google have no incentive to switch,
so it's probably futile, if in fact google has decided to stop playing.
--
Paul K
http://www.youtube.com/user/fibrationboy
http://www.soundclick.com/paulkirk
http://mypage.iu.edu/~pkirk/
Joey Goldstein
Feb 6, 2012, 9:46:39 AM2/6/12
to
On 2/6/12 2:56 AM, Claus Rogge wrote:
> Google Groups are trying to kill usenet by not exporting messages to
> newsservers anymore. We who do not use GG get less than a tenth of the
> messages. If you can, please use a newsreader (like Thunderbird) and
> server.
>
Has this been stated by Google somewhere online or reported elsewhere?
> newsservers anymore. We who do not use GG get less than a tenth of the
> messages. If you can, please use a newsreader (like Thunderbird) and
> server.
>
Sometimes GoogleGroups just hiccups.
It's so big that it screws up all of usenet.
But then it usually goers back to normal.
What makes you think that this time is different?
BTW
I don't use GoogleGroups, so I won't see any replies to this that are
made via that interface, unless this gets fixed or unless I start using
GoogleGroups.
--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
Michael Tueller
Feb 6, 2012, 9:48:13 AM2/6/12
to
> Google Groups are trying to kill usenet by not exporting messages to
> newsservers anymore. We who do not use GG get less than a tenth of the
> messages. If you can, please use a newsreader (like Thunderbird) and
> server.
slowjammerukdog
Feb 6, 2012, 10:00:15 AM2/6/12
to
Is this why I no longer receive a digest email from the group? I've tried unsubscribing and resubscribing, but I haven't had any digests since November.
Gerry
Feb 6, 2012, 10:51:34 AM2/6/12
to
On 2012-02-06 14:42:46 +0000, Paul K said:
> On 2/6/12 2:56 AM, Claus Rogge wrote:
>> Google Groups are trying to kill usenet by not exporting messages to
>> newsservers anymore. We who do not use GG get less than a tenth of the
>> messages. If you can, please use a newsreader (like Thunderbird) and
>> server.
>>
> To remind anyone interested: thunderbird and either albasani.net or
> eternal-september.net are all you need to read/write to usenet for
> free. Of course, those happy with google have no incentive to switch,
> so it's probably futile, if in fact google has decided to stop playing.
There have been many good reasons explained regarding using a dedicated
> On 2/6/12 2:56 AM, Claus Rogge wrote:
>> Google Groups are trying to kill usenet by not exporting messages to
>> newsservers anymore. We who do not use GG get less than a tenth of the
>> messages. If you can, please use a newsreader (like Thunderbird) and
>> server.
>>
> To remind anyone interested: thunderbird and either albasani.net or
> eternal-september.net are all you need to read/write to usenet for
> free. Of course, those happy with google have no incentive to switch,
> so it's probably futile, if in fact google has decided to stop playing.
newsreader, but many people are disinclined to fiddle with software. In
fact some people only use computers for email and web-browsing.
Probably the vast majority. And oops--facebook.
I don't imagine this will move anybody out of googledom. Bummer.
--
There will be no economic recovery without addressing taxes:
http://tinyurl.com/76pqm4q
Gerry
Feb 6, 2012, 10:54:55 AM2/6/12
to
On 2012-02-06 14:46:39 +0000, Joey Goldstein said:
> On 2/6/12 2:56 AM, Claus Rogge wrote:
>> Google Groups are trying to kill usenet by not exporting messages to
>> newsservers anymore. We who do not use GG get less than a tenth of the
>> messages. If you can, please use a newsreader (like Thunderbird) and
>> server.
>>
>
> Has this been stated by Google somewhere online or reported elsewhere?
> Sometimes GoogleGroups just hiccups.
> It's so big that it screws up all of usenet.
> But then it usually goers back to normal.
> What makes you think that this time is different?
Megaupload.
> On 2/6/12 2:56 AM, Claus Rogge wrote:
>> Google Groups are trying to kill usenet by not exporting messages to
>> newsservers anymore. We who do not use GG get less than a tenth of the
>> messages. If you can, please use a newsreader (like Thunderbird) and
>> server.
>>
>
> Has this been stated by Google somewhere online or reported elsewhere?
> Sometimes GoogleGroups just hiccups.
> It's so big that it screws up all of usenet.
> But then it usually goers back to normal.
> What makes you think that this time is different?
Usenet has a binaries wing that has been a large distributor of illicit
material for over a decade. I understand that's why usenet was dropped
by Time/Warner, Cox and many others along the way.
So now google has a reason, but I think having their own tightly
controlled universe is also a significant part of the
decision--assuming there is such a decision.
The web and the interenet in general was a vast sprawling frontier for
many years, now it's is being whittled into little fiefdoms. Congress
failed to get it under control recently. But that was only temporary.
> I don't use GoogleGroups, so I won't see any replies to this that are
> made via that interface, unless this gets fixed or unless I start using
> GoogleGroups.
terrasbeest
Feb 6, 2012, 11:00:32 AM2/6/12
to
On 6 feb, 16:00, slowjammerukdog <slow...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Is this why I no longer receive a digest email from the group? I've tried unsubscribing and resubscribing, but I haven't had any digests since November.
Same here.
> Is this why I no longer receive a digest email from the group? I've tried unsubscribing and resubscribing, but I haven't had any digests since November.
Nil
Feb 6, 2012, 12:23:42 PM2/6/12
to
On 06 Feb 2012, Claus Rogge <claus...@SPAMTRAPaon.at> wrote in
rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz:
> Google Groups are trying to kill usenet by not exporting messages
> to newsservers anymore.
Where did you hear that? I haven't heard any such announcement.
As far as I know, this is just another of Google group's frequent
temporary outages, and it will start working again when they get around
to it.
rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz:
> Google Groups are trying to kill usenet by not exporting messages
> to newsservers anymore.
As far as I know, this is just another of Google group's frequent
temporary outages, and it will start working again when they get around
to it.
lukejazz
Feb 6, 2012, 12:23:42 PM2/6/12
to
I'm continuing with Google - my ISP (the company I actually work full time for) doesn't provide usenet. I have limited, but some experience with usenet (previous to the cancellation of access by my provider). I've never noticed anything of much use to me on there except for this group.
Doesn't it seem like usenet is a total "washout" anyway? What do people find there of interest that's not on GG?
Just curious,
Luke
Doesn't it seem like usenet is a total "washout" anyway? What do people find there of interest that's not on GG?
Just curious,
Luke
Gerry
Feb 6, 2012, 1:18:06 PM2/6/12
to
continuing apace if you check google.groups. It seems that they simply
aren't be routing to usenet. Why would google consider this
problematic? The vast bulk of google.groups users don't otherwise
interact with usenet per se.
Google has, for the most part, usurped usenet. I can't think of no
good reason they wouldn't want to keep it their private domain.
thomas
Feb 6, 2012, 2:14:38 PM2/6/12
to
On Feb 6, 12:23 pm, lukejazz <l...@lukejazz.com> wrote:
>
> Doesn't it seem like usenet is a total "washout" anyway? What do people find there of interest that's not on GG?
Freedom. Anyone can send anything to usenet. It's not owned or
>
> Doesn't it seem like usenet is a total "washout" anyway? What do people find there of interest that's not on GG?
controlled by google or anyone else. It is a true public space. GG is
great. but Google owns it, and Google has a history of killing its
children (or sometimes just crippling them). Google also has a history
of cooperating with totalitarian regimes.
The revolution is not going to be televised on GG.
Garvin Yee
Feb 6, 2012, 3:17:00 PM2/6/12
to
Just look at the unmoderated groups, and you'll see all the
porno spam, and other stuff unrelated to the topic, as well as
threads totally unrelated.
The only freedom you really give up is the freedom to not have
to
look at their ads......easy enough to ignore......
Steve Hawkins
Feb 6, 2012, 3:52:09 PM2/6/12
to
Claus Rogge <claus...@SPAMTRAPaon.at> wrote in
news:4f2f87a9$0$1574$91ce...@newsreader04.highway.telekom.at:
> Google Groups are trying to kill usenet by not exporting messages to
> newsservers anymore. We who do not use GG get less than a tenth of the
> messages. If you can, please use a newsreader (like Thunderbird) and
> server.
>
you pay for.
http://www.newsgroupreviews.com/
Steve Hawkins
Nil
Feb 6, 2012, 4:14:29 PM2/6/12
to
On 06 Feb 2012, Gerry <add...@domain.com> wrote in
rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz:
> This is a very different kind of outage though. Discussions seem
> to be continuing apace if you check google.groups. It seems that
> they simply aren't be routing to usenet.
I've seen this happen before. Stuff keeps going on in there, but
nothing gets in or out until they fix whatever it is. This isn't
anything new.
> Google has, for the most part, usurped usenet. I can't think of
> no good reason they wouldn't want to keep it their private domain.
I'm sure they know full well that "Google Groups" includes Usenet as
well as their homegrown groups, even if their typical user doesn't
understand the distinction. It doesn't make sense to me for them to
continue a Usenet group as an internal group with the same name. Unless
I see some sign that they are purging Usenet groups, I feel certain
that this is just another of their many temporary glitches. This one
has only been going on a few days. Past ones have been much longer.
rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz:
> This is a very different kind of outage though. Discussions seem
> to be continuing apace if you check google.groups. It seems that
> they simply aren't be routing to usenet.
nothing gets in or out until they fix whatever it is. This isn't
anything new.
> Google has, for the most part, usurped usenet. I can't think of
> no good reason they wouldn't want to keep it their private domain.
well as their homegrown groups, even if their typical user doesn't
understand the distinction. It doesn't make sense to me for them to
continue a Usenet group as an internal group with the same name. Unless
I see some sign that they are purging Usenet groups, I feel certain
that this is just another of their many temporary glitches. This one
has only been going on a few days. Past ones have been much longer.
Nil
Feb 6, 2012, 4:16:57 PM2/6/12
to
On 06 Feb 2012, Steve Hawkins
<stephen....@frontier.comREMOVETHIS> wrote in
rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz:
> Plenty of places to go. If you only want free service, prepare to
> get what you pay for.
>
> http://www.newsgroupreviews.com/
eternal-september.org is pretty reliable for a free service, more so
than some for-pay ones.
I like individual.net - it costs only 10 euro per year (about $15 USD)
and has been rock solid for the past few years.
<stephen....@frontier.comREMOVETHIS> wrote in
rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz:
> Plenty of places to go. If you only want free service, prepare to
> get what you pay for.
>
> http://www.newsgroupreviews.com/
than some for-pay ones.
I like individual.net - it costs only 10 euro per year (about $15 USD)
and has been rock solid for the past few years.
RS
Feb 6, 2012, 4:31:16 PM2/6/12
to
On Mon, 6 Feb 2012 10:18:06 -0800, Gerry <add...@domain.com> wrote:
>Google has, for the most part, usurped usenet. I can't think of no
>good reason they wouldn't want to keep it their private domain.
Aside from their corporate philosophy of doing no harm? :-)
>Google has, for the most part, usurped usenet. I can't think of no
>good reason they wouldn't want to keep it their private domain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_be_evil
Google has been a huge source of spam from entities that know of their
lax enforcement or downright apathy toward poluting usenet.
While it is interesting to contemplate Usenet reverting to its former
academic, pre-AOL-CD-in-every-magazine focus, it would still be a
shame if they do isolate themselves. Existing Usenet'ers can always
jump to Eternal-September or another free host, but newbs may never
discover Usenet. And of course Google's archiving wouldn't necessarily
keep Usenet posts (though maybe they'd still do that for the sake of
advertising revenue).
Tim McNamara
Feb 6, 2012, 6:50:54 PM2/6/12
to
In article <o2h0j7phrslnt5po8...@4ax.com>,
AOL provided a portal to it, bringing in a flood of posters who did not
understand the conventions and standards of Usenet, thereby bringing
down the quality of discussion everywhere. Since Google is one of the
biggest routes of spam and of idiots into Usenet, it would not entirely
be a down side if they disconnected from Usenet- however, that would
also take away a number of posters I really like and who are smart and
literate (even some I disagree with regularly) and the place would be
poorer without them.
> Existing Usenet'ers can always jump to Eternal-September or another
> free host, but newbs may never discover Usenet. And of course
> Google's archiving wouldn't necessarily keep Usenet posts (though
> maybe they'd still do that for the sake of advertising revenue).
Well, Google bought the DejaNews archive years ago as part of their
avowed effort to "index" (e.g., own) all of the information on the
Internet. Google Books has extended that to owning all the information
in print, some day (interestingly without much regard for copyright). I
am not sure Google could institutionally stand cutting themselves off
from one of the information flows on the Internet.
--
This country will not be a permanently good place for any of us to live in
unless we make it a reasonably good place for all of us to live in.
Theodore Roosevelt
RS <R...@nospam.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Feb 2012 10:18:06 -0800, Gerry <add...@domain.com> wrote:
>
> >Google has, for the most part, usurped usenet. I can't think of no
> >good reason they wouldn't want to keep it their private domain.
>
> Aside from their corporate philosophy of doing no harm? :-)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_be_evil
>
> Google has been a huge source of spam from entities that know of
> their lax enforcement or downright apathy toward poluting usenet.
>
> While it is interesting to contemplate Usenet reverting to its former
> academic, pre-AOL-CD-in-every-magazine focus, it would still be a
> shame if they do isolate themselves.
I had something of the same thought- Usenet changed dramatically when
> On Mon, 6 Feb 2012 10:18:06 -0800, Gerry <add...@domain.com> wrote:
>
> >Google has, for the most part, usurped usenet. I can't think of no
> >good reason they wouldn't want to keep it their private domain.
>
> Aside from their corporate philosophy of doing no harm? :-)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_be_evil
>
> Google has been a huge source of spam from entities that know of
> their lax enforcement or downright apathy toward poluting usenet.
>
> While it is interesting to contemplate Usenet reverting to its former
> academic, pre-AOL-CD-in-every-magazine focus, it would still be a
> shame if they do isolate themselves.
AOL provided a portal to it, bringing in a flood of posters who did not
understand the conventions and standards of Usenet, thereby bringing
down the quality of discussion everywhere. Since Google is one of the
biggest routes of spam and of idiots into Usenet, it would not entirely
be a down side if they disconnected from Usenet- however, that would
also take away a number of posters I really like and who are smart and
literate (even some I disagree with regularly) and the place would be
poorer without them.
> Existing Usenet'ers can always jump to Eternal-September or another
> free host, but newbs may never discover Usenet. And of course
> Google's archiving wouldn't necessarily keep Usenet posts (though
> maybe they'd still do that for the sake of advertising revenue).
avowed effort to "index" (e.g., own) all of the information on the
Internet. Google Books has extended that to owning all the information
in print, some day (interestingly without much regard for copyright). I
am not sure Google could institutionally stand cutting themselves off
from one of the information flows on the Internet.
--
This country will not be a permanently good place for any of us to live in
unless we make it a reasonably good place for all of us to live in.
Theodore Roosevelt
Tim McNamara
Feb 6, 2012, 6:53:18 PM2/6/12
to
In article <2012020607513426683-address@domaincom>,
(usually Internet Exploder). I suspect many computer users don't know
that their computers will actually run other software.
Gerry <add...@domain.com> wrote:
> On 2012-02-06 14:42:46 +0000, Paul K said:
>
> > On 2/6/12 2:56 AM, Claus Rogge wrote:
> >> Google Groups are trying to kill usenet by not exporting messages
> >> to newsservers anymore. We who do not use GG get less than a tenth
> >> of the messages. If you can, please use a newsreader (like
> >> Thunderbird) and server.
> >>
> > To remind anyone interested: thunderbird and either albasani.net or
> > eternal-september.net are all you need to read/write to usenet for
> > free. Of course, those happy with google have no incentive to
> > switch, so it's probably futile, if in fact google has decided to
> > stop playing.
>
> There have been many good reasons explained regarding using a
> dedicated newsreader, but many people are disinclined to fiddle with
> software. In fact some people only use computers for email and
> web-browsing. Probably the vast majority. And oops--facebook.
Almost all of which is done with a single application: a Web browser
> On 2012-02-06 14:42:46 +0000, Paul K said:
>
> > On 2/6/12 2:56 AM, Claus Rogge wrote:
> >> Google Groups are trying to kill usenet by not exporting messages
> >> to newsservers anymore. We who do not use GG get less than a tenth
> >> of the messages. If you can, please use a newsreader (like
> >> Thunderbird) and server.
> >>
> > To remind anyone interested: thunderbird and either albasani.net or
> > eternal-september.net are all you need to read/write to usenet for
> > free. Of course, those happy with google have no incentive to
> > switch, so it's probably futile, if in fact google has decided to
> > stop playing.
>
> There have been many good reasons explained regarding using a
> dedicated newsreader, but many people are disinclined to fiddle with
> software. In fact some people only use computers for email and
> web-browsing. Probably the vast majority. And oops--facebook.
(usually Internet Exploder). I suspect many computer users don't know
that their computers will actually run other software.
thomas
Feb 6, 2012, 6:56:08 PM2/6/12
to
On Feb 6, 3:17 pm, Garvin Yee <drsmith...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The only freedom you really give up is the freedom to not have
> to
> look at their ads......easy enough to ignore......
Think again. Once Google gains a monopoly on this space, then it can
>
> The only freedom you really give up is the freedom to not have
> to
> look at their ads......easy enough to ignore......
do whatever it wants with it, including censoring it. Just because
Google doesn't censor now does not mean they won't in the future.
Even worse is the concern that Google will use its knowledge of users'
identities to expose them to totalitarians.
Garvin Yee
Feb 6, 2012, 7:09:37 PM2/6/12
to
On Feb 6, 4:56 pm, thomas <drthomasfbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 6, 3:17 pm, Garvin Yee <drsmith...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > The only freedom you really give up is the freedom to not have
> > to
> > look at their ads......easy enough to ignore......
>
> Think again. Once Google gains a monopoly on this space, then it can
> do whatever it wants with it, including censoring it. Just because
> Google doesn't censor now does not mean they won't in the future.
>
Censoring will only cost them money, so I don't think they'll do
> On Feb 6, 3:17 pm, Garvin Yee <drsmith...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > The only freedom you really give up is the freedom to not have
> > to
> > look at their ads......easy enough to ignore......
>
> Think again. Once Google gains a monopoly on this space, then it can
> do whatever it wants with it, including censoring it. Just because
> Google doesn't censor now does not mean they won't in the future.
>
that.
Plus, people would leave in droves if that happens.
Or perhaps not. Have you ever been "flagged" on Craigslist?
That's a sort of self-policing, mob-rules, democratic version
of censorship, and yet it doesn't drive people away from Craig's, they
just keep posting.
> Even worse is the concern that Google will use its knowledge of users'
> identities to expose them to totalitarians.
Joey Goldstein
Feb 6, 2012, 11:36:12 PM2/6/12
to
On 2/6/12 9:46 AM, Joey Goldstein wrote:
> On 2/6/12 2:56 AM, Claus Rogge wrote:
>> Google Groups are trying to kill usenet by not exporting messages to
>> newsservers anymore. We who do not use GG get less than a tenth of the
>> messages. If you can, please use a newsreader (like Thunderbird) and
>> server.
>>
>
> Has this been stated by Google somewhere online or reported elsewhere?
> Sometimes GoogleGroups just hiccups.
> It's so big that it screws up all of usenet.
> But then it usually goers back to normal.
> What makes you think that this time is different?
>
> BTW
> I don't use GoogleGroups, so I won't see any replies to this that are
> made via that interface, unless this gets fixed or unless I start using
> GoogleGroups.
>
Looks like it's all working again.
> On 2/6/12 2:56 AM, Claus Rogge wrote:
>> Google Groups are trying to kill usenet by not exporting messages to
>> newsservers anymore. We who do not use GG get less than a tenth of the
>> messages. If you can, please use a newsreader (like Thunderbird) and
>> server.
>>
>
> Has this been stated by Google somewhere online or reported elsewhere?
> Sometimes GoogleGroups just hiccups.
> It's so big that it screws up all of usenet.
> But then it usually goers back to normal.
> What makes you think that this time is different?
>
> BTW
> I don't use GoogleGroups, so I won't see any replies to this that are
> made via that interface, unless this gets fixed or unless I start using
> GoogleGroups.
>
Claus Rogge
Feb 7, 2012, 3:04:54 AM2/7/12
to
Am 07/02/12 05.36, schrieb Joey Goldstein:
> Looks like it's all working again.
Yes. Sorry if I sounded paranoid but after nearly one week of three
postings a day (today I got 133) and discussions at
rec.music.classical.guitar, I thought it was a fact.
> Looks like it's all working again.
postings a day (today I got 133) and discussions at
rec.music.classical.guitar, I thought it was a fact.
Tim McNamara
Feb 7, 2012, 9:38:56 AM2/7/12
to
In article <4f30db26$0$1584$91ce...@newsreader04.highway.telekom.at>,
easily monetized to make them billions of dollars. Usenet predates that
and the technology is not easily monetized- except through Google
Groups' Web interface. Google could kill connectivity with Usenet in a
heartbeat with virtually no cost to itself.
Claus Rogge <claus...@SPAMTRAPaon.at> wrote:
> Am 07/02/12 05.36, schrieb Joey Goldstein:
>
> > Looks like it's all working again.
>
> Yes. Sorry if I sounded paranoid but after nearly one week of three
> postings a day (today I got 133) and discussions at
> rec.music.classical.guitar, I thought it was a fact.
Sooner or later it will be. Google's ecosystem is the Web which is
> Am 07/02/12 05.36, schrieb Joey Goldstein:
>
> > Looks like it's all working again.
>
> Yes. Sorry if I sounded paranoid but after nearly one week of three
> postings a day (today I got 133) and discussions at
> rec.music.classical.guitar, I thought it was a fact.
easily monetized to make them billions of dollars. Usenet predates that
and the technology is not easily monetized- except through Google
Groups' Web interface. Google could kill connectivity with Usenet in a
heartbeat with virtually no cost to itself.
Gerry
Feb 7, 2012, 12:10:48 PM2/7/12
to
On 2012-02-06 21:14:29 +0000, Nil said:
> On 06 Feb 2012, Gerry <add...@domain.com> wrote in
> rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz:
>
>> This is a very different kind of outage though. Discussions seem
>> to be continuing apace if you check google.groups. It seems that
>> they simply aren't be routing to usenet.
>
> I've seen this happen before. Stuff keeps going on in there, but
> nothing gets in or out until they fix whatever it is. This isn't
> anything new.
>
>> Google has, for the most part, usurped usenet. I can't think of
>> no good reason they wouldn't want to keep it their private domain.
>
> I'm sure they know full well that "Google Groups" includes Usenet as
> well as their homegrown groups, even if their typical user doesn't
> understand the distinction. It doesn't make sense to me for them to
> continue a Usenet group as an internal group with the same name.
More control and more rationale for people to stop using dedicated
> On 06 Feb 2012, Gerry <add...@domain.com> wrote in
> rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz:
>
>> This is a very different kind of outage though. Discussions seem
>> to be continuing apace if you check google.groups. It seems that
>> they simply aren't be routing to usenet.
>
> I've seen this happen before. Stuff keeps going on in there, but
> nothing gets in or out until they fix whatever it is. This isn't
> anything new.
>
>> Google has, for the most part, usurped usenet. I can't think of
>> no good reason they wouldn't want to keep it their private domain.
>
> I'm sure they know full well that "Google Groups" includes Usenet as
> well as their homegrown groups, even if their typical user doesn't
> understand the distinction. It doesn't make sense to me for them to
> continue a Usenet group as an internal group with the same name.
newsreaders and spending more time on Google? Why wouldn't Google want
to pull participants from everywhere as much as possible?
> Unless I see some sign that they are purging Usenet groups, I feel certain
> that this is just another of their many temporary glitches. This one
> has only been going on a few days. Past ones have been much longer.
reasonable way to gain and maintain traffic, which is important to
Google.
Gerry
Feb 7, 2012, 12:14:09 PM2/7/12
to
On 2012-02-06 21:31:16 +0000, RS said:
> On Mon, 6 Feb 2012 10:18:06 -0800, Gerry <add...@domain.com> wrote:
>
>> Google has, for the most part, usurped usenet. I can't think of no
>> good reason they wouldn't want to keep it their private domain.
>
> Aside from their corporate philosophy of doing no harm? :-)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_be_evil
A great sales pitch, but I can't imagine it won't conflict with an
> On Mon, 6 Feb 2012 10:18:06 -0800, Gerry <add...@domain.com> wrote:
>
>> Google has, for the most part, usurped usenet. I can't think of no
>> good reason they wouldn't want to keep it their private domain.
>
> Aside from their corporate philosophy of doing no harm? :-)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_be_evil
underlying philosophy that always seems to trump: Business is war.
> Google has been a huge source of spam from entities that know of their
> lax enforcement or downright apathy toward poluting usenet.
evil if it happens to be passing by."
> While it is interesting to contemplate Usenet reverting to its former
> academic, pre-AOL-CD-in-every-magazine focus, it would still be a
> shame if they do isolate themselves. Existing Usenet'ers can always
> jump to Eternal-September or another free host, but newbs may never
> discover Usenet. And of course Google's archiving wouldn't necessarily
> keep Usenet posts (though maybe they'd still do that for the sake of
> advertising revenue).
between about 10 or 12 different usenet groups. Those who really only
go to one are likely served well enough by google. Pursuing more than
one question or topic around g.g, is just an amazing headache.
Gerry
Feb 7, 2012, 12:17:01 PM2/7/12
to
On 2012-02-07 14:38:56 +0000, Tim McNamara said:
> In article <4f30db26$0$1584$91ce...@newsreader04.highway.telekom.at>,
> Claus Rogge <claus...@SPAMTRAPaon.at> wrote:
>
>> Am 07/02/12 05.36, schrieb Joey Goldstein:
>>
>>> Looks like it's all working again.
>>
>> Yes. Sorry if I sounded paranoid but after nearly one week of three
>> postings a day (today I got 133) and discussions at
>> rec.music.classical.guitar, I thought it was a fact.
>
> Sooner or later it will be. Google's ecosystem is the Web which is
> easily monetized to make them billions of dollars. Usenet predates that
> and the technology is not easily monetized- except through Google
> Groups' Web interface. Google could kill connectivity with Usenet in a
> heartbeat with virtually no cost to itself.
I agree. Later is becoming sooner all the time as people try to whittle
> In article <4f30db26$0$1584$91ce...@newsreader04.highway.telekom.at>,
> Claus Rogge <claus...@SPAMTRAPaon.at> wrote:
>
>> Am 07/02/12 05.36, schrieb Joey Goldstein:
>>
>>> Looks like it's all working again.
>>
>> Yes. Sorry if I sounded paranoid but after nearly one week of three
>> postings a day (today I got 133) and discussions at
>> rec.music.classical.guitar, I thought it was a fact.
>
> Sooner or later it will be. Google's ecosystem is the Web which is
> easily monetized to make them billions of dollars. Usenet predates that
> and the technology is not easily monetized- except through Google
> Groups' Web interface. Google could kill connectivity with Usenet in a
> heartbeat with virtually no cost to itself.
it into private enterprise. This will go on everywhere until it works.
That's the nature of man and money.
Gerry
Feb 7, 2012, 12:22:44 PM2/7/12
to
On 2012-02-06 10:55:15 +0000, Garvin Yee said:
> The irony here is that if not for Google, usenet would be
> nearly dead anyways!
Isn't that the same logic that if McCain were president now the economy
would be booming?
If not for Google, something else would have happened.
> It's a far easier interface to get
> started with, and is still a better system than thunderbird
> for displaying new threads versus active threads.
And Thunderbird is far worse than others.
> The vast
> majority of posts are through Google groups.
I might not have believed it until I saw there was about 4 of us over
the weekend.
> And I noticed that my messages here didn't show
> up in eternal september, but I assumed they were just
> having server problems.
Hmm. A curous coincidence.
> The irony here is that if not for Google, usenet would be
> nearly dead anyways!
Isn't that the same logic that if McCain were president now the economy
would be booming?
If not for Google, something else would have happened.
> It's a far easier interface to get
> started with, and is still a better system than thunderbird
> for displaying new threads versus active threads.
And Thunderbird is far worse than others.
> The vast
> majority of posts are through Google groups.
I might not have believed it until I saw there was about 4 of us over
the weekend.
> And I noticed that my messages here didn't show
> up in eternal september, but I assumed they were just
> having server problems.
Hmm. A curous coincidence.
Gerry
Feb 7, 2012, 12:25:05 PM2/7/12
to
of interest, flag it for answers to questions I once asked, killfile
trolls and cross-posted spam, hop through 4 different usegroups in a
couple of minutes, and not have to doink through 50 pages of relentless
google-noise in the process.
Hardly a washout from my perspective.
Gerry
Feb 7, 2012, 12:28:32 PM2/7/12
to
On 2012-02-07 00:09:37 +0000, Garvin Yee said:
> Censoring will only cost them money, so I don't think they'll do
> that.
Censorship has been exercised against all distributors sooner or later.
> Censoring will only cost them money, so I don't think they'll do
> that.
Witness congress recently stumbling to claim it recently. You figure
that's the last time? If the store doesn't have everything you want it
still doesn't mean you'll drive half-way cross the county to get it.
> Plus, people would leave in droves if that happens.
incapable of operating now? Using something other than a browser?
> Or perhaps not. Have you ever been "flagged" on Craigslist?
>
> That's a sort of self-policing, mob-rules, democratic version
> of censorship, and yet it doesn't drive people away from Craig's, they
> just keep posting.
common good, of course!
>> Even worse is the concern that Google will use its knowledge of users'
>> identities to expose them to totalitarians.
>
> Which "totalitarians" are you talking about?
van
Feb 7, 2012, 2:41:08 PM2/7/12
to
One of your classics!
Garvin Yee
Feb 7, 2012, 2:51:16 PM2/7/12
to
On Feb 7, 10:28 am, Gerry <addr...@domain.com> wrote:
> On 2012-02-07 00:09:37 +0000, Garvin Yee said:
>
> > Censoring will only cost them money, so I don't think they'll do
> > that.
>
> Censorship has been exercised against all distributors sooner or later.
> Witness congress recently stumbling to claim it recently. You figure
> that's the last time? If the store doesn't have everything you want it
> still doesn't mean you'll drive half-way cross the county to get it.
>
> > Plus, people would leave in droves if that happens.
>
> And go where? To learning how to operate a newsreader that they seem
> incapable of operating now? Using something other than a browser?
>
> > Or perhaps not. Have you ever been "flagged" on Craigslist?
>
> > That's a sort of self-policing, mob-rules, democratic version
> > of censorship, and yet it doesn't drive people away from Craig's, they
> > just keep posting.
>
> They've been sued and relented to censorship too, by the way. For the
> common good, of course!
>
I think the flagging system is good actually, except when it's
> On 2012-02-07 00:09:37 +0000, Garvin Yee said:
>
> > Censoring will only cost them money, so I don't think they'll do
> > that.
>
> Censorship has been exercised against all distributors sooner or later.
> Witness congress recently stumbling to claim it recently. You figure
> that's the last time? If the store doesn't have everything you want it
> still doesn't mean you'll drive half-way cross the county to get it.
>
> > Plus, people would leave in droves if that happens.
>
> And go where? To learning how to operate a newsreader that they seem
> incapable of operating now? Using something other than a browser?
>
> > Or perhaps not. Have you ever been "flagged" on Craigslist?
>
> > That's a sort of self-policing, mob-rules, democratic version
> > of censorship, and yet it doesn't drive people away from Craig's, they
> > just keep posting.
>
> They've been sued and relented to censorship too, by the way. For the
> common good, of course!
>
ME
who is flagged!! haha
But it's not a bad system of self-policing. If it showed up in
Groups, it might be an improvement. There is always going to be
some asshole troll that just needs to be shown the door.....
> >> Even worse is the concern that Google will use its knowledge of users'
> >> identities to expose them to totalitarians.
>
> > Which "totalitarians" are you talking about?
>
> What d'ya got?
> --
Tim McNamara
Feb 7, 2012, 3:11:33 PM2/7/12
to
In article <2012020709170111063-address@domaincom>,
Well, the Internet used to be one of those hated things known as public
goods (along with parks, transit systems, public universities) that have
become the new enemy in the New World Order (which boils down to "my
money is more important than your life").
goods (along with parks, transit systems, public universities) that have
become the new enemy in the New World Order (which boils down to "my
money is more important than your life").
Gerry
Feb 7, 2012, 4:13:34 PM2/7/12
to
On 2012-02-07 19:51:16 +0000, Garvin Yee said:
>>> That's a sort of self-policing, mob-rules, democratic version
>>> of censorship, and yet it doesn't drive people away from Craig's, they
>>> just keep posting.
>>
>> They've been sued and relented to censorship too, by the way. For the
>> common good, of course!
>
> I think the flagging system is good actually, except when it's
> ME
> who is flagged!! haha
>
> But it's not a bad system of self-policing. If it showed up in
> Google
> Groups, it might be an improvement.
I'm not sure what system of self-policing you're advocating that Google
>>> That's a sort of self-policing, mob-rules, democratic version
>>> of censorship, and yet it doesn't drive people away from Craig's, they
>>> just keep posting.
>>
>> They've been sued and relented to censorship too, by the way. For the
>> common good, of course!
>
> I think the flagging system is good actually, except when it's
> ME
> who is flagged!! haha
>
> But it's not a bad system of self-policing. If it showed up in
> Groups, it might be an improvement.
doesn't already make use of: None.
> There is always going to be
> some asshole troll that just needs to be shown the door.....
us; the authority to whom we're willing to cede our power for "the
common good".
>>>> Even worse is the concern that Google will use its knowledge of users'
>>>> identities to expose them to totalitarians.
>>
>>> Which "totalitarians" are you talking about?
>>
>> What d'ya got?
>
Actually you were asking somone else. Nevertheless, It's a reference to
Brando's line as the misfit trouble-making motorcycle gang member in
"The Wild One".
"I don't understand. What are you rebelling against?"
"What d'ya got?"
But in the meantime I think China works as the best current reference
point, though "the common good" is defined in a more narrow range than
most people in China would prefer. I don't know how you spell such as
d*mocr*cy in ideograms.
During the Bush regime, the telephone companies were more than glad to
cede access to dangerous elements in journalism, just as many agencies
illegally procured information on individuals during the "crisis" of
Communism, and all it's hundreds of proxies generallly known as
Anything-Power; black power, Brown power, SDS, hippie newspapers,
student uprisings, et al.
AOL among others, has been more than glad to provide user identity in
trapping criminals, possible criminals, or future potential part-time
wanna-be criminals.
Gerry
Feb 7, 2012, 4:33:22 PM2/7/12
to
On 2012-02-07 20:11:33 +0000, Tim McNamara said:
> In article <2012020709170111063-address@domaincom>,
> Gerry <add...@domain.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2012-02-07 14:38:56 +0000, Tim McNamara said:
>>
>>> In article
>>> <4f30db26$0$1584$91ce...@newsreader04.highway.telekom.at>,
>>> Claus Rogge <claus...@SPAMTRAPaon.at> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Am 07/02/12 05.36, schrieb Joey Goldstein:
>>>>
>>>>> Looks like it's all working again.
>>>>
>>>> Yes. Sorry if I sounded paranoid but after nearly one week of
>>>> three postings a day (today I got 133) and discussions at
>>>> rec.music.classical.guitar, I thought it was a fact.
>>>
>>> Sooner or later it will be. Google's ecosystem is the Web which is
>>> easily monetized to make them billions of dollars. Usenet predates
>>> that and the technology is not easily monetized- except through
>>> Google Groups' Web interface. Google could kill connectivity with
>>> Usenet in a heartbeat with virtually no cost to itself.
>>
>> I agree. Later is becoming sooner all the time as people try to
>> whittle it into private enterprise. This will go on everywhere until
>> it works. That's the nature of man and money.
>
> Well, the Internet used to be one of those hated things known as public
> goods (along with parks, transit systems, public universities) that have
> become the new enemy in the New World Order (which boils down to "my
> money is more important than your life").
Isn't that the same world order we had when we called it the "old world order"?
> In article <2012020709170111063-address@domaincom>,
> Gerry <add...@domain.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2012-02-07 14:38:56 +0000, Tim McNamara said:
>>
>>> In article
>>> <4f30db26$0$1584$91ce...@newsreader04.highway.telekom.at>,
>>> Claus Rogge <claus...@SPAMTRAPaon.at> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Am 07/02/12 05.36, schrieb Joey Goldstein:
>>>>
>>>>> Looks like it's all working again.
>>>>
>>>> Yes. Sorry if I sounded paranoid but after nearly one week of
>>>> three postings a day (today I got 133) and discussions at
>>>> rec.music.classical.guitar, I thought it was a fact.
>>>
>>> Sooner or later it will be. Google's ecosystem is the Web which is
>>> easily monetized to make them billions of dollars. Usenet predates
>>> that and the technology is not easily monetized- except through
>>> Google Groups' Web interface. Google could kill connectivity with
>>> Usenet in a heartbeat with virtually no cost to itself.
>>
>> I agree. Later is becoming sooner all the time as people try to
>> whittle it into private enterprise. This will go on everywhere until
>> it works. That's the nature of man and money.
>
> Well, the Internet used to be one of those hated things known as public
> goods (along with parks, transit systems, public universities) that have
> become the new enemy in the New World Order (which boils down to "my
> money is more important than your life").
All great civilizations eventually conclude by pissing away every last
sent on armies and munitions leaving the society to collapse underneath
it. Either that, or they have their asses handed to them by someone
about 10 years before their own collapse.
Check our military expenditures for the countdown clock on this week's
"New World Order".
Garvin Yee
Feb 7, 2012, 7:28:09 PM2/7/12
to
On Feb 7, 2:13 pm, Gerry <addr...@domain.com> wrote:
> On 2012-02-07 19:51:16 +0000, Garvin Yee said:
>
> >>> That's a sort of self-policing, mob-rules, democratic version
> >>> of censorship, and yet it doesn't drive people away from Craig's, they
> >>> just keep posting.
>
> >> They've been sued and relented to censorship too, by the way. For the
> >> common good, of course!
>
> > I think the flagging system is good actually, except when it's
> > ME
> > who is flagged!! haha
>
> > But it's not a bad system of self-policing. If it showed up in
> > Google
> > Groups, it might be an improvement.
>
> I'm not sure what system of self-policing you're advocating that Google
> doesn't already make use of: None.
>
> > There is always going to be
> > some asshole troll that just needs to be shown the door.....
>
> The problem is picking someone to make such decisions for the rest of
> us; the authority to whom we're willing to cede our power for "the
> common good".
>
The Craigslist flagging system is chosen by the users, which
> On 2012-02-07 19:51:16 +0000, Garvin Yee said:
>
> >>> That's a sort of self-policing, mob-rules, democratic version
> >>> of censorship, and yet it doesn't drive people away from Craig's, they
> >>> just keep posting.
>
> >> They've been sued and relented to censorship too, by the way. For the
> >> common good, of course!
>
> > I think the flagging system is good actually, except when it's
> > ME
> > who is flagged!! haha
>
> > But it's not a bad system of self-policing. If it showed up in
> > Groups, it might be an improvement.
>
> I'm not sure what system of self-policing you're advocating that Google
> doesn't already make use of: None.
>
> > There is always going to be
> > some asshole troll that just needs to be shown the door.....
>
> The problem is picking someone to make such decisions for the rest of
> us; the authority to whom we're willing to cede our power for "the
> common good".
>
would be us. And it's usually for the common good, even though
it's sometimes me who gets flagged! haha
> >>>> Even worse is the concern that Google will use its knowledge of users'
> >>>> identities to expose them to totalitarians.
>
> >>> Which "totalitarians" are you talking about?
>
> >> What d'ya got?
>
> > I'm asking you!
>
> Actually you were asking somone else. Nevertheless, It's a reference to
> Brando's line as the misfit trouble-making motorcycle gang member in
> "The Wild One".
>
> "I don't understand. What are you rebelling against?"
> "What d'ya got?"
>
> But in the meantime I think China works as the best current reference
> point, though "the common good" is defined in a more narrow range than
> most people in China would prefer. I don't know how you spell such as
> d*mocr*cy in ideograms.
>
> During the Bush regime, the telephone companies were more than glad to
> cede access to dangerous elements in journalism, just as many agencies
> illegally procured information on individuals during the "crisis" of
> Communism, and all it's hundreds of proxies generallly known as
> Anything-Power; black power, Brown power, SDS, hippie newspapers,
> student uprisings, et al.
>
> AOL among others, has been more than glad to provide user identity in
> trapping criminals, possible criminals, or future potential part-time
> wanna-be criminals.
> --
the authorities to apprehend criminals, but you are correct that
McCarthyism DID happen, and will probably happen again.
Steven Bornfeld
Feb 8, 2012, 12:23:30 AM2/8/12
to
Steve
Gerry
Feb 8, 2012, 12:10:08 PM2/8/12
to
On 2012-02-08 00:28:09 +0000, Garvin Yee said:
>> The problem is picking someone to make such decisions for the rest of
>> us; the authority to whom we're willing to cede our power for "the
>> common good".
>
> The Craigslist flagging system is chosen by the users, which
> would be us. And it's usually for the common good, even though
> it's sometimes me who gets flagged! haha
Ah; now I understand. I'm still not in favor of a "majority rules"
>> The problem is picking someone to make such decisions for the rest of
>> us; the authority to whom we're willing to cede our power for "the
>> common good".
>
> The Craigslist flagging system is chosen by the users, which
> would be us. And it's usually for the common good, even though
> it's sometimes me who gets flagged! haha
approach. It's certainly better than "the elected official" rules, but
it potentially dumps a skosh less than half. Myriad contributions to
science have come from "outside the discipline". I wonder how well
adherents of bop, Ornette Coleman, free jazz and myriad other trends as
they developed would have set with a "majority rules" approach to
discussion.
>> During the Bush regime, the telephone companies were more than glad to
>> cede access to dangerous elements in journalism, just as many agencies
>> illegally procured information on individuals during the "crisis" of
>> Communism, and all it's hundreds of proxies generallly known as
>> Anything-Power; black power, Brown power, SDS, hippie newspapers,
>> student uprisings, et al.
>>
>> AOL among others, has been more than glad to provide user identity in
>> trapping criminals, possible criminals, or future potential part-time
>> wanna-be criminals.
>
> I don't have a problem with Craigslist or Google working with
> the authorities to apprehend criminals, but you are correct that
> McCarthyism DID happen, and will probably happen again.
Defining "criminality" can easily become a political task.
> the authorities to apprehend criminals, but you are correct that
> McCarthyism DID happen, and will probably happen again.
RS
Feb 8, 2012, 3:34:58 PM2/8/12
to
I think that may be one of the reasons for their corporate "Do no
evil" byline (even though it does appear to be complete BS). But
consider how much personal information Google can access, compared to
Microsoft. Every Google search phrase can be correlated to an IP, so
they could theoreticallly have an indepth profile on millions of
people. Imagine what that could be worth in an information-driven
world.
Garvin Yee
Feb 9, 2012, 1:16:39 AM2/9/12
to
On Feb 8, 10:10 am, Gerry <addr...@domain.com> wrote:
> On 2012-02-08 00:28:09 +0000, Garvin Yee said:
>
> >> The problem is picking someone to make such decisions for the rest of
> >> us; the authority to whom we're willing to cede our power for "the
> >> common good".
>
> > The Craigslist flagging system is chosen by the users, which
> > would be us. And it's usually for the common good, even though
> > it's sometimes me who gets flagged! haha
>
> Ah; now I understand. I'm still not in favor of a "majority rules"
> approach. It's certainly better than "the elected official" rules, but
> it potentially dumps a skosh less than half. Myriad contributions to
> science have come from "outside the discipline". I wonder how well
> adherents of bop, Ornette Coleman, free jazz and myriad other trends as
> they developed would have set with a "majority rules" approach to
> discussion.
>
"Majority Rules" is pretty much how a democracy works, except
> On 2012-02-08 00:28:09 +0000, Garvin Yee said:
>
> >> The problem is picking someone to make such decisions for the rest of
> >> us; the authority to whom we're willing to cede our power for "the
> >> common good".
>
> > The Craigslist flagging system is chosen by the users, which
> > would be us. And it's usually for the common good, even though
> > it's sometimes me who gets flagged! haha
>
> Ah; now I understand. I'm still not in favor of a "majority rules"
> approach. It's certainly better than "the elected official" rules, but
> it potentially dumps a skosh less than half. Myriad contributions to
> science have come from "outside the discipline". I wonder how well
> adherents of bop, Ornette Coleman, free jazz and myriad other trends as
> they developed would have set with a "majority rules" approach to
> discussion.
>
in the craigslist case, the elected censor is bypassed.....a much
better
system.
Jazz and every other form of art has it's "authorities", and
an accepted, codified form, so it too has rules.
> >> During the Bush regime, the telephone companies were more than glad to
> >> cede access to dangerous elements in journalism, just as many agencies
> >> illegally procured information on individuals during the "crisis" of
> >> Communism, and all it's hundreds of proxies generallly known as
> >> Anything-Power; black power, Brown power, SDS, hippie newspapers,
> >> student uprisings, et al.
>
> >> AOL among others, has been more than glad to provide user identity in
> >> trapping criminals, possible criminals, or future potential part-time
> >> wanna-be criminals.
>
> > I don't have a problem with Craigslist or Google working with
> > the authorities to apprehend criminals, but you are correct that
> > McCarthyism DID happen, and will probably happen again.
>
> Defining "criminality" can easily become a political task.
> --
Gerry
Feb 9, 2012, 4:58:23 PM2/9/12
to
On 2012-02-09 06:16:39 +0000, Garvin Yee said:
> "Majority Rules" is pretty much how a democracy works,
We have democracy in the abstract, and then we have such systems as the
> "Majority Rules" is pretty much how a democracy works,
one here in the US, a selection among mouthpieces of corporate power,
and the democracies of, say, Sadaam Hussein or modern Russia.
Then there's the democracy of Iran where citizens vote, and the
bureaucracy adjusts.
> …except in the craigslist case, the elected censor is bypassed.....a much
> better system.
Every system of censorship has it's limitations of fairness. No
censorship at all seems doesn't parse the fairness aspect this way and
that, it just is. It can be unpleasant and noisy certainly, but it sure
is free.
> Jazz and every other form of art has it's "authorities", and
> an accepted, codified form, so it too has rules.
someone else is when things get tricky.
0 new messages