A Pithisism

[gareth]

"Once a Fools' Licensee, always a fool with any licence"

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

"gareth" <no....@thank.you.invalid> wrote:
> "Once a Fools' Licensee, always a fool with any licence"

Strange that Garth posted this shortly after I corrected his dig at my M6
status by pointing out I was no longer FL... Kill file failure, again?
Certainly brain failure.

--
Stephen Thomas Cole - Sent from my iPhone so please forgive any spelling
mistakes or botched snipping.

[FranK Turner-Smith G3VKI]

"Stephen Thomas Cole" <REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote in message
news:1429194277389824316.668662REMO...@news.eternal-september.org...

> "gareth" <no....@thank.you.invalid> wrote:
>> "Once a Fools' Licensee, always a fool with any licence"
>
> Strange that Garth posted this shortly after I corrected his dig at my M6
> status by pointing out I was no longer FL... Kill file failure, again?
> Certainly brain failure.
>

What brain?
--
;-)
.
73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI - mine's a pint.
.
http://turner-smith.co.uk

[Anton Deque]

On Thu, 09 May 2013 20:31:19 +0000, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

> "gareth" <no....@thank.you.invalid> wrote:
>> "Once a Fools' Licensee, always a fool with any licence"
>
> Strange that Garth posted this shortly after I corrected his dig at my
> M6 status by pointing out I was no longer FL... Kill file failure,
> again? Certainly brain failure.

I don't believe he has a kill file. An obsessive querulant like Gareth
wouldn't take the chance of missing something that might be used as
evidence.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

I very strongly suspect that you are 100% accurate here. The mad thing is,
though, that Big G can't even control himself in not giving the game away,
he just *has* to post responses sometimes, he simply can't let things be,
not even to maintain the charade. It's most amusing.

[FranK Turner-Smith G3VKI]

"Stephen Thomas Cole" <REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote in message

news:1132570834389854746.975780REMO...@news.eternal-september.org...

> Anton Deque <an...@dec.tum.invalid> wrote:
>> On Thu, 09 May 2013 20:31:19 +0000, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
>>
>>> "gareth" <no....@thank.you.invalid> wrote:
>>>> "Once a Fools' Licensee, always a fool with any licence"
>>>
>>> Strange that Garth posted this shortly after I corrected his dig at my
>>> M6 status by pointing out I was no longer FL... Kill file failure,
>>> again? Certainly brain failure.
>>
>> I don't believe he has a kill file. An obsessive querulant like Gareth
>> wouldn't take the chance of missing something that might be used as
>> evidence.
>
> I very strongly suspect that you are 100% accurate here. The mad thing is,
> though, that Big G can't even control himself in not giving the game away,
> he just *has* to post responses sometimes, he simply can't let things be,
> not even to maintain the charade. It's most amusing.
>

Yeah, good innit? Every time there's a major crapflood up pops Beanie to
comment on how quiet the group is!

[John]

"Stephen Thomas Cole" wrote

>>> Strange that Garth posted this shortly after I corrected his dig at my
>>> M6 status by pointing out I was no longer FL... Kill file failure,
>>> again? Certainly brain failure.
>>
>> I don't believe he has a kill file. An obsessive querulant like Gareth
>> wouldn't take the chance of missing something that might be used as
>> evidence.
>
> I very strongly suspect that you are 100% accurate here. The mad thing is,
> though, that Big G can't even control himself in not giving the game away,
> he just *has* to post responses sometimes, he simply can't let things be,
> not even to maintain the charade. It's most amusing.

Having just looked at uk.r.a. on Google Groups, the need for a moderated
group seems self-evident. One of them morphed again today and I saw a fair
bit of his mindless crap - but two clicks of the mouse and its gone.

But please don't blacklist Beanie, he lives out his life on uk.r.a. He'd
really be lost without it. Think of it as a community service.

Besides, how else would the UK Amateur Community learn about polarised
resistors, heat bands, the evil ways of the Black Man of Gates, etc. etc.!

[Spike]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 12:15:55 +0000, John wrote:

> Having just looked at uk.r.a. on Google Groups, the need for a moderated
> group seems self-evident.

Of course it does. The issue is whether one does it oneself, as in:

> One of them morphed again today and I saw a
> fair bit of his mindless crap - but two clicks of the mouse and its
> gone.

...which most of us manage with ease, or you go for the full control-freak, closed-mind approach of the
moderated group where posting in the wrong tone will get you banned.

Oh, I forgot the smiley...;-)

--
Spike

[Molly Mockford]

At 12:15:55 on Fri, 10 May 2013, John <Jo...@invalid.invalid> wrote in
<kmio7k$pju$2...@dont-email.me>:

>Having just looked at uk.r.a. on Google Groups, the need for a moderated
>group seems self-evident. One of them morphed again today and I saw a fair
>bit of his mindless crap - but two clicks of the mouse and its gone.

Yes, the same for me - a couple of clicks, and all unwanted posts are
gone, leaving only the on-topic ones. That doesn't seem to me to be any
sort of evidence of the need for a moderated group. Usenet isn't in
existence to pander to GoogleGroups, and all NNTP clients allow their
users to killfile appropriately.
--
Molly Mockford
Nature loves variety. Unfortunately, society hates it. (Milton Diamond Ph.D.)
(My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.)

[Jim Stewart ...]

> sort of evidence of the need for a moderated group. Usenet isn't in
> existence to pander to GoogleGroups, and all NNTP clients allow their
> users to killfile appropriately.

> Molly Mockford

I hate EVERYTHING Google but it is hard to escape it all .......

[John]

"Molly Mockford" wrote

>>Having just looked at uk.r.a. on Google Groups, the need for a moderated
>>group seems self-evident. One of them morphed again today and I saw a fair
>>bit of his mindless crap - but two clicks of the mouse and its gone.
>
> Yes, the same for me - a couple of clicks, and all unwanted posts are
> gone, leaving only the on-topic ones. That doesn't seem to me to be any
> sort of evidence of the need for a moderated group. Usenet isn't in
> existence to pander to GoogleGroups, and all NNTP clients allow their
> users to killfile appropriately.

Lets say you're a complete newcomer and are looking for advice on how to
become an amateur, what is involved in getting licensed, where to take
exams, etc. etc.

You look on usenet and see the crapflood in uk.r.a. You're going to be
turned off immediately.


A moderated group would at least provide a haven of relative sanity. But I
would only want crapflood to be cut out. The normal chit-chat is fine, and
I'd even allow Gareth as a member.

Its a pity the way uk.r.a. has gone - a certain GM4 invited some of his
buddies to join the NG. It seems that there's only about 4 individuals that
are causing all the problems.

I'm a member of a number of (non-yahoo) NGs, all a moderated and they work
well and the moderation is what I would describe as being a very light touch
to being virtually non-existent. The only moderation is to blacklist those
spammers who creep in from time to time.

[Molly Mockford]

At 12:58:30 on Fri, 10 May 2013, John <Jo...@invalid.invalid> wrote in
<kmiqo4$7p4$1...@dont-email.me>:

>
>"Molly Mockford" wrote
>
>>>Having just looked at uk.r.a. on Google Groups, the need for a moderated
>>>group seems self-evident. One of them morphed again today and I saw a fair
>>>bit of his mindless crap - but two clicks of the mouse and its gone.
>>
>> Yes, the same for me - a couple of clicks, and all unwanted posts are
>> gone, leaving only the on-topic ones. That doesn't seem to me to be any
>> sort of evidence of the need for a moderated group. Usenet isn't in
>> existence to pander to GoogleGroups, and all NNTP clients allow their
>> users to killfile appropriately.
>
>Lets say you're a complete newcomer

To radio, yes. There are, I fear, no complete newcomers to Usenet any
more. They all use web forums instead.

>and are looking for advice on how to become an amateur, what is
>involved in getting licensed, where to take exams, etc. etc.
>
>You look on usenet and see the crapflood in uk.r.a.

You immediately recognise it as such because many of the Subject lines
are in capital letters, and others are clearly spam, spiteful or
whatever; the indicators are perfectly obvious. The unwanted posters
are thoughtful enough to make it absolutely clear that their posts are
not the sort of thing anybody wants to read; they do not come disguised
as sensible posts. This makes it easy-peasy-Japanesey to filter them
out, even using only a mental killfile.

> You're going to be turned off immediately.

You simply start a new thread asking whether the group has produced an
FAQ giving answers to the basic questions you want to ask. If the group
has not yet done so, you then proceed to ask those questions. You never
need to open any thread other than the one you yourself have started.

>A moderated group would at least provide a haven of relative sanity.

If somebody only wants answers to some basic questions, they aren't
looking for a haven of relative sanity. They are looking for facts, and
once they have them they will probably move on. Alternatively, if they
decide to stay, they will set up their killfile appropriately. "Build
it and they will come" has been proved, over and over again, not to work
in Usenet.

[Rambo]

Agreed. Using the crapflood to justify moderation is nuts.
I think that most posters on here are non-conformist types (and no I
don't mean religion!) varying from mild to extreme, which makes the
group interesting. Most would never accept moderation. A moderated
group would be as dull as dishwater.

[John]

"Molly Mockford" wrote

>
> You immediately recognise it as such because many of the Subject lines are
> in capital letters, and others are clearly spam, spiteful or whatever; the
> indicators are perfectly obvious.

They may well be perfectly obvious but do you really want to wade through a
cesspit of diarrhea to find something worthy of reading?

Hercules may have been able to clean the Augean stables, but he's give up
hope with the NG as it is now.

[John]

"Rambo" < wrote

> Agreed. Using the crapflood to justify moderation is nuts.

Why?

> I think that most posters on here are non-conformist types (and no I
> don't mean religion!) varying from mild to extreme, which makes the
> group interesting. Most would never accept moderation. A moderated
> group would be as dull as dishwater.

Having a moderated group isn't going to cause uk.r.a. to cease. If you want
no moderation and are happy with the crapflood, you know where to find it.

Over the last few months since the crapflood started in ernest, I've noticed
a number of old regulars have disappeared, and even those posts with the
slightest hint of anything to do with amateur radio now seem to have all be
dried up.

After all, that's what jumbo wanted.

[Molly Mockford]

At 13:52:19 on Fri, 10 May 2013, John <Jo...@invalid.invalid> wrote in
<kmits3$p9p$1...@dont-email.me>:

>
>"Molly Mockford" wrote
>
>> You immediately recognise it as such because many of the Subject lines are
>> in capital letters, and others are clearly spam, spiteful or whatever; the
>> indicators are perfectly obvious.
>
>They may well be perfectly obvious but do you really want to wade through a
>cesspit of diarrhea to find something worthy of reading?

My point is that you don't have to do so. You can tell, without opening
those posts, that they are not what you want to read. Ignore them.

[John]

"Molly Mockford" wrote

>
> My point is that you don't have to do so. You can tell, without opening
> those posts, that they are not what you want to read. Ignore them.

But do you really want to wade through a cesspit of diarrhea to find
something worthy of reading?

[Rambo]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 14:47:39 -0000, "John" <Jo...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

Find yourself a copy of "agent", the filters are easy to use.

[John]

"Rambo" wrote

> Find yourself a copy of "agent", the filters are easy to use.

But you shouldn't need to set up any filters. I never had the need to resort
to any filtering until jumbo invited his friends to the NG.

[Molly Mockford]

At 14:47:39 on Fri, 10 May 2013, John <Jo...@invalid.invalid> wrote in
<kmj13k$bpo$1...@dont-email.me>:

You don't have to wade through it! Outlook Express is as capable of
killfiling as any other newsreader. Set up your killfile, and you will
only occasionally need to add a new ID or two to it. And you don't have
to killfile only on author; filtering on Subject line, which you can do
in most newsreaders, allows you to drop any post with certain words in
the Subject. Glancing at my auto-killed section of the newsgroup, I can
see that useful trigger words would be breen, markie, carstairs, paisley
and so forth.

You only have to wade through a cesspit of diarrhoea if you deliberately
choose to do so.

[John]

"Molly Mockford" wrote

>>But do you really want to wade through a cesspit of diarrhea to find
>>something worthy of reading?
>
> You don't have to wade through it! Outlook Express is as capable of
> killfiling as any other newsreader. Set up your killfile, and you will
> only occasionally need to add a new ID or two to it.

But why should you need to expend your time setting up killfiles to filter
out four idiots.

[J1MBO in the HF shack...]

> But you shouldn't need to set up any filters. I never had the need to
> resort
> to any filtering until jumbo invited his friends to the NG.
>
>

no no...they were not invited...they followed me here .........anyway it was
good to share them all with you and show what it is like up here...seeing as
brain didn't believe me .......I blame google ...and bloody google groups on
android devices.......

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <NzQYx9f4...@molly.mockford>, Molly Mockford

Molly, I'm sorry, but this all just strikes me as so much bollocks. Whilst
there is certainly a perfectly sound argument to be made in favour of
employing extensive kill-filing, there is a much greater one to be made in
favour of providing a space where such is not an absolute requirement for
pleasurable use. Now, I think it's pretty clear, and has been throughout,
that you've nailed your colours to the mast of filtering, so I'll not
waste my time debating it, beyond saying that I find such a thought
process entirely defeatist and utterly nihilistic.

--
-------------------
Stephen Thomas Cole
Remove the obvious to send e-mail: REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com
-------------------

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <58upo8daqbdcigrop...@4ax.com>, Rambo

<Ra...@thisaintreal.org> wrote:

> Agreed. Using the crapflood to justify moderation is nuts.

That's only a minor part of the justification. I refer you to the RFD
thread in unnc so you can get the fuller picture.

[Spike]

It takes more clicks to close the software and computer than it does to add a couple of authors to the KF, but I
don't see much of a demand for a home-visit computer shut-down service.

--
Spike

[Molly Mockford]

At 15:10:24 on Fri, 10 May 2013, John <Jo...@invalid.invalid> wrote in
<kmj2ea$jrs$1...@dont-email.me>:

You have spent five times as much time whingeing in this thread as I
have spent in the last three weeks maintaining my killfile.

[Molly Mockford]

At 15:00:58 on Fri, 10 May 2013, John <Jo...@invalid.invalid> wrote in
<kmj1sk$ggu$1...@dont-email.me>:

Option 1: Do something simple about it, something which you can easily
do yourself, and keep under your own control.

Option 2: Whine that it's all somebody else's fault.

Option 3: Hope that somebody else will do the job for you so that you
don't have to bother. Of course, what they approve or reject will
probably not be the same as what you yourself might wish to approve or
reject. Loop to 1.

[J1MBO in the HF shack...]

> You only have to wade through a cesspit of diarrhoea if you deliberately
> choose to do so.

> Molly Mockford


I think it is useful to have an unblocked version if only to remind you how
the hobby was trashed 11 years ago by the FL and letting class Bs onto HF
.......

[John]

"Molly Mockford" wrote

>
> You don't have to wade through it! Outlook Express is as capable of
> killfiling as any other newsreader. Set up your killfile, and you will
> only occasionally need to add a new ID or two to it.

I do use a killfile and with two clicks of a mouse I can add someone to it -
but the fundamental question is why should I need to? I don't need to take
such actions with any other NG I use.

But as I said before, this NG will continue, you are free to continue to use
it. The choice is yours.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <kmj2ea$jrs$1...@dont-email.me>, "John" <Jo...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>
> But why should you need to expend your time setting up killfiles to filter
> out four idiots.

John, the simple answer is *you shouldn't have to*, but such a rational
point of view does not sit well with those who are so entirely dogmatic
with their approach. Just because a particular method has worked for them
for a few years hence does not necessarily mean that it is the only and
most perfect method. Indeed, it could be argued that merely tuning out the
bullshit whilst still tacitly accepting it (by not moderating it (branding
it unacceptable) in the first place) is a self-defeating exercise.

[Spike]

Have you seen the usenet stats for the last three years? They have gone over a cliff. There's only ~1300 users
of the uk heirarchy at present, and that number is falling.

How one expects to multiply useage by dividing it is an unexplained mystery.

--
Spike

[John]

"Stephen Thomas Cole" wrote

>>
>> But why should you need to expend your time setting up killfiles to
>> filter
>> out four idiots.
>
> John, the simple answer is *you shouldn't have to*, but such a rational
> point of view does not sit well with those who are so entirely dogmatic
> with their approach. Just because a particular method has worked for them
> for a few years hence does not necessarily mean that it is the only and
> most perfect method. Indeed, it could be argued that merely tuning out the
> bullshit whilst still tacitly accepting it (by not moderating it (branding
> it unacceptable) in the first place) is a self-defeating exercise.

Agreed. I can't understand why many here are so vehemently anti-moderation.
If I were a moderator, there's only about four posters who I would
blacklist - all are from the Glasgow area.

As I said before, I'm acutely aware that a number of previously regular
posters have departed the NG since the start of the crapflood.

In the other NGs I use, moderation works very well, and the NGs get lots of
interesting postings every day, and there's not the slightest wiff of any
diarrhea.

[Jim Stewart ...]

>
> Lets say you're a complete newcomer and are looking for advice on how to
> become an amateur, what is involved in getting licensed, where to take
> exams, etc. etc.
>
> You look on usenet and see the crapflood in uk.r.a. You're going to be
> turned off immediately.

good ....serves as a good warning as to what the hobby has become .......

>
>
> A moderated group would at least provide a haven of relative sanity. But I
> would only want crapflood to be cut out. The normal chit-chat is fine, and
> I'd even allow Gareth as a member.

so sneek then in under false pretences .....?

>
> Its a pity the way uk.r.a. has gone - a certain GM4 invited some of his
> buddies to join the NG. It seems that there's only about 4 individuals
> that are causing all the problems.

I did NOT............yes I would say four ...yes .....

[Jim Stewart ...]

> As I said before, I'm acutely aware that a number of previously regular
> posters have departed the NG since the start of the crapflood.
>

if it also gets rid of nick and brian it would have been worthwhile ......

[Spike]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 15:41:54 +0000, John wrote:

> In the other NGs I use, moderation works very well

Those that survive, perhaps, and one of the few remaining recently had a formal challenge to its moderation
practices.

--
Spike

[John]

"Spike" <Sp...@AeroSpike.invalid> wrote in message
news:av4j5b...@mid.individual.net...

They seem to be very active.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

In article <av4idl...@mid.individual.net>, Aero....@live.com wrote:

> There's only ~1300 users

Citation, please? The most recent numbers I saw suggested that 1600 (or
so) individuals posted in a *certain* week. That does not say that there
are a maximum of 1600 people posting, merely that only that number posted
at the time of polling. There may have been a few thousand on holiday, or
in bed with the flu. The numbers do not give any wider or definitive clue.

[Spike]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 17:00:57 +0100, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

> In article <av4idl...@mid.individual.net>, Aero....@live.com
> wrote:
>
>> There's only ~1300 users
>
> Citation, please? The most recent numbers I saw suggested that 1600 (or
> so) individuals posted in a *certain* week. That does not say that there
> are a maximum of 1600 people posting, merely that only that number
> posted at the time of polling. There may have been a few thousand on
> holiday, or in bed with the flu. The numbers do not give any wider or
> definitive clue.

Thank god for that. The decline in userstats for the last three years is clearly an aberration.

--
Spike

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

Still waiting for that citation, Spike.

--
Stephen Thomas Cole - Sent from my iPhone so please forgive any spelling
mistakes or botched snipping.

[Spike]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 16:05:27 +0000, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

> Spike <Sp...@AeroSpike.invalid> wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 May 2013 17:00:57 +0100, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
>>
>>> In article <av4idl...@mid.individual.net>, Aero....@live.com
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> There's only ~1300 users
>>>
>>> Citation, please? The most recent numbers I saw suggested that 1600
>>> (or so) individuals posted in a *certain* week. That does not say that
>>> there are a maximum of 1600 people posting, merely that only that
>>> number posted at the time of polling. There may have been a few
>>> thousand on holiday, or in bed with the flu. The numbers do not give
>>> any wider or definitive clue.
>>
>> Thank god for that. The decline in userstats for the last three years
>> is clearly an aberration.
>
> Still waiting for that citation, Spike.

It's all in my imagination, don't worry about it.

--
Spike

[RipeCrisbies]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 15:57:47 +0100, Molly Mockford wrote:

> Outlook Express is as capable of
> killfiling as any other newsreader.

Goodness, is that so? How M$ catches up :-)



--
M0WYM
Sales @ radiowymsey
http://sales-at-radio-wymsey.ebid.net/
http://stores.ebay.co.uk/Sales-At-Radio-Wymsey/

[Spike]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 15:35:17 +0000, Spike wrote:

> Have you seen the usenet stats for the last three years? They have gone
> over a cliff. There's only ~1300 users of the uk heirarchy at present,
> and that number is falling.

in the last 7 days there have been 1387 users of the uk heirarchy.

In the 7 days ending 20130307 there were 1531.

A fall of 9 percent in two months. That's a lot of holiday.

--
Spike

[RipeCrisbies]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 15:10:24 +0000, John wrote:

> But why should you need to expend your time setting up killfiles to
> filter out four idiots.

The same reason you block out idiots wherever you may go. As for
expending time, today I blocked some twerp who was the first I've had to
block for a couple of weeks. I can't get worked up worried about
expending a couple of seconds a week. Life's too short!

[Spike]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 17:44:16 +0100, lucifer wrote:

> On 10 May 2013 16:06:33 GMT, Spike <Sp...@AeroSpike.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Thank god for that. The decline in userstats for the last three years is
>>clearly an aberration.
>

> Stall wasting time talking with CBers, Spike?
> Just treat it as Scottish and add it to your kill-file.
>
> This NG is perfect then. Trust me. ;-)

I've just spent the better part of two days re-grouting and re-sealing a small shower cubicle. My knees hurt, my
back aches, and my shoulders are sore from working left-handed. I need some sport.

--
Spike

[John]

"RipeCrisbies" wrote

>
>> But why should you need to expend your time setting up killfiles to
>> filter out four idiots.
>
> The same reason you block out idiots wherever you may go. As for
> expending time, today I blocked some twerp who was the first I've had to
> block for a couple of weeks. I can't get worked up worried about
> expending a couple of seconds a week. Life's too short!

In one country I have to go on a frequent basis, a killfile is something
where you would write down a list names and then hand over $25 for each name
of the list.

Very effective - so I'm told.

Works effectively with all newsreaders.

[RipeCrisbies]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 15:00:58 +0000, John wrote:

> But you shouldn't need to set up any filters.

If it rains the wise man puts on his wellies.

[Molly Mockford]

At 16:06:33 on Fri, 10 May 2013, Spike <Sp...@AeroSpike.invalid> wrote
in <av4k89...@mid.individual.net>:

What worries me is that four-fifths of the population of Usenet might be
in bed with the 'flu. I had no idea that NNTP could transmit *that*
kind of virus.

[Molly Mockford]

At 16:14:40 on Fri, 10 May 2013, Stephen Thomas Cole
<REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote in
<REMOVEsteve.t.col...@192.168.0.139>:

>Molly, I'm sorry, but this all just strikes me as so much bollocks. Whilst
>there is certainly a perfectly sound argument to be made in favour of
>employing extensive kill-filing, there is a much greater one to be made in
>favour of providing a space where such is not an absolute requirement for
>pleasurable use. Now, I think it's pretty clear, and has been throughout,
>that you've nailed your colours to the mast of filtering, so I'll not
>waste my time debating it, beyond saying that I find such a thought
>process entirely defeatist and utterly nihilistic.

No, Stephen, it's the way Usenet works, and the way it worked long
before even DejaNews began. (I'm sure I don't need to explain how
DejaNews became Deja and then became Google Groups and then became
GoogleGroups...) People are expected to look after themselves, not to
be spoonfed. If people insist on using an interface like GoogleGroups
which has no killfile capability, that's their choice; they can have a
newsfeed and a newsreader totally free of charge, and do it properly.
Usenet newsgroups are not created for the convenience of GoogleGroups
users.

[Molly Mockford]

At 17:11:10 on Fri, 10 May 2013, RipeCrisbies
<Gnom...@lympledger.co.uk> wrote in <kmj9ne$gck$3...@dont-email.me>:

>On Fri, 10 May 2013 15:00:58 +0000, John wrote:
>
>> But you shouldn't need to set up any filters.
>
>If it rains the wise man puts on his wellies.

Only, of course, if he intends deliberately to wade through a cesspit of
diarrhoea.

[Brian Reay]

On 10/05/13 18:15, Molly Mockford wrote:
> At 16:14:40 on Fri, 10 May 2013, Stephen Thomas Cole
> <REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote in
> <REMOVEsteve.t.col...@192.168.0.139>:
>
>> Molly, I'm sorry, but this all just strikes me as so much bollocks.
>> Whilst
>> there is certainly a perfectly sound argument to be made in favour of
>> employing extensive kill-filing, there is a much greater one to be
>> made in
>> favour of providing a space where such is not an absolute requirement for
>> pleasurable use. Now, I think it's pretty clear, and has been throughout,
>> that you've nailed your colours to the mast of filtering, so I'll not
>> waste my time debating it, beyond saying that I find such a thought
>> process entirely defeatist and utterly nihilistic.
>
> No, Stephen, it's the way Usenet works, and the way it worked long
> before even DejaNews began. (I'm sure I don't need to explain how
> DejaNews became Deja and then became Google Groups and then became
> GoogleGroups...) People are expected to look after themselves, not to
> be spoonfed. If people insist on using an interface like GoogleGroups
> which has no killfile capability, that's their choice; they can have a
> newsfeed and a newsreader totally free of charge, and do it properly.
> Usenet newsgroups are not created for the convenience of GoogleGroups
> users.

That is your opinion of "how things should be", perhaps Steve's view
differs. Do you not accept that others my hold a different view? Perhaps
others wish to join a moderated group. What gives you the right to
prevent the formation of one or to prevent them from joining it?

Unless you are forced to join or they are arguing that the existing
group be changed, then why does it impact you? Of course, you could be
worried that this group 'dwindles' as the other group grows, and the
"case" against the other group is disproved.


Strange isn't it, how those who CLAIM to be "free thinkers" are in fact
the ones wanting to restrict others.

[Jim Stewart ...]

> be spoonfed. If people insist on using an interface like GoogleGroups
> which has no killfile capability, that's their choice; they can have a
> newsfeed and a newsreader totally free of charge, and do it properly.
> Usenet newsgroups are not created for the convenience of GoogleGroups
> users.

> Molly Mockford

your average FL is too stupid .......

[Jim Stewart ...]

> In one country I have to go on a frequent basis, a killfile is something
> where you would write down a list names and then hand over $25 for each
> name of the list.
>

works that way in Glasgow as well .........

[Jim Stewart ...]

> Still waiting for that citation, Spike.
>

nasty little American car it was ..........

[RipeCrisbies]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 18:51:04 +0100, Molly Mockford wrote:

>
>
> Only, of course, if he intends deliberately to wade through a cesspit of
> diarrhoea.

You use your wellies where you may but if that's where your heading then
maybe you should get some waders.

[Jim Stewart ...]

> I've just spent the better part of two days re-grouting and re-sealing a
> small shower cubicle. My knees hurt, my
> back aches, and my shoulders are sore from working left-handed. I need
> some sport.
>

> Spike
>

....now watch the grout come off over a number of years...worked for me

[Molly Mockford]

At 18:57:19 on Fri, 10 May 2013, Brian Reay <no...@m.com> wrote in
<kmjc74$gc6$1...@dont-email.me>:

I am doing nothing to prevent its formation. I am providing information
on ways in which people can control their own newsgroup experience with
this existing newsgroup.

>Unless you are forced to join or they are arguing that the existing
>group be changed, then why does it impact you?

I am concerned with uk.* Usenet as a whole, and feel that this would
certainly be adversely impacted if too many "sanitised" groups were
created for the benefit of GoogleGroups users who do not have access to
killfiles. That would be like closing down good restaurants because
everybody could eat at Macdonalds.

>Strange isn't it, how those who CLAIM to be "free thinkers" are in fact
>the ones wanting to restrict others.

When have I suggested that I want to restrict others? I have provided
information to enable others to operate in a Usenet environment without
suffering the restrictions of third parties.

[Spike]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 18:12:08 +0100, Molly Mockford wrote:

> At 16:06:33 on Fri, 10 May 2013, Spike <Sp...@AeroSpike.invalid> wrote
> in <av4k89...@mid.individual.net>:
>
>>On Fri, 10 May 2013 17:00:57 +0100, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
>>
>>> In article <av4idl...@mid.individual.net>, Aero....@live.com
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> There's only ~1300 users
>>>
>>> Citation, please? The most recent numbers I saw suggested that 1600
>>> (or so) individuals posted in a *certain* week. That does not say that
>>> there are a maximum of 1600 people posting, merely that only that
>>> number posted at the time of polling. There may have been a few
>>> thousand on holiday, or in bed with the flu. The numbers do not give
>>> any wider or definitive clue.
>>
>>Thank god for that. The decline in userstats for the last three years is
>>clearly an aberration.
>
> What worries me is that four-fifths of the population of Usenet might be
> in bed with the 'flu. I had no idea that NNTP could transmit *that*
> kind of virus.

What should concern everyone is that there must have been a lot of holidaying, and/or a lot of flu, for the decline
to last three years (and probably a lot longer). The number of articles posted has halved in that three years, so
this is an epidemic of Spanish Influenza proportions. It must be a helluva contagious virus.

--
Spike

[Spike]

Well here's what St Stephanus Secundus said to Molly a little earlier; comments thus [...] are mine.

-----

Molly, I'm sorry, but this all just strikes me as so much bollocks [A reasoned response, not].

Whilst there is certainly a perfectly sound argument to be made in favour of

employing extensive kill-filing [which I am about to take no notice of] there is a much greater one to be made in

favour of providing a space where such is not an absolute requirement for

pleasurable use [My argument trumps yours, without my developing any reasons as to why].

Now, I think it's pretty clear [That's my argument, it's the only one that counts, you can stuff yours] and has been
throughout, that you've nailed your colours to the mast of filtering [whereas I am the soul of moderation,
IYSWIM, despite nailing my colours to the moderation mast] so I'll not
waste my time debating it [because I can't, perhaps] beyond saying that I find such a thought
process entirely defeatist and utterly nihilistic [So no counter-arguments will be entertained].

-----

Molly has presented a reasonable position, and defended it, but St Stephanus II has done neither. Perhaps your
criticisms should be headed his way rather than Molly's.

Did I forget the smiley? By George, that'll never do!
--
Spike

[Spike]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 19:32:20 +0100, Molly Mockford wrote:

> I am concerned with uk.* Usenet as a whole, and feel that this would
> certainly be adversely impacted if too many "sanitised" groups were
> created for the benefit of GoogleGroups users who do not have access to
> killfiles. That would be like closing down good restaurants because
> everybody could eat at Macdonalds.

Useage may be against you. Here are the user-agent stats for the last seven days, showing the number of users
of each:

Google Groups 2812
Thunderbird 1156
Forte Agent 449
Outlook Express 773
(unknown) 594
NewsWatcher 133
ForteAgent/7.00 123
Pan 153
Xnews 134
MicroPlanet Gravity 83

--
Spike

[Anton Deque]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 20:10:05 +0100, Hils wrote:

> On 10/05/13 19:32, Molly Mockford wrote:
>> I have provided information to enable others to operate in a Usenet
>> environment without suffering the restrictions of third parties.
>

> Some people would much rather simply restrict free speech so that
> everyone can do nothing more than match their own ideologies. They also
> make the most noise if anyone so much as criticises what *they* say.
> It's a mental disability that the rest of us just have to compensate
> for.

Now see, to me, that sounds like this group as it already is. Ignore the
irrelevance of the 'crapflood' and you have a core group of users who
will band together to drive out any opinion that doesn't agree with their
shared view of the world. It's not a good place to be pro RSGB for
instance.

[gareth]

"MM3QRO/MM" <mm3...@yjahoo.com> wrote in message
news:xn0ihww2...@news.albasani.net...
>
> oh.... theres the smiley
>
> :-)

Paul, I'm obviously missing something tonight; why do all your
posts end with the above?

[Anton Deque]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 20:27:32 +0100, Chronos wrote:

> On Fri, 10 May 2013 19:18:10 +0000 (UTC) Anton Deque
> <an...@dec.tum.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Now see, to me, that sounds like this group as it already is. Ignore
>> the irrelevance of the 'crapflood' and you have a core group of users
>> who will band together to drive out any opinion that doesn't agree with
>> their shared view of the world. It's not a good place to be pro RSGB
>> for instance.
>

> Yes, but nobody can *stop* you being pro-RSGB in the same way nobody can
> stop anyone else calling bullshit. That's the difference.

But surely if you have a compelling argument it can just as easily be put
forward in a moderated group? If the moderators turn out to be biased it
will soon become apparent, and what have you lost? The chance to call
someone a twat?

[Spike]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 19:48:18 +0000, MM3QRO/MM wrote:

> Spike wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 10 May 2013 15:35:17 +0000, Spike wrote:
>>
>> > Have you seen the usenet stats for the last three years? They have
>> > gone over a cliff. There's only ~1300 users of the uk heirarchy at
>> > present, and that number is falling.
>>
>> in the last 7 days there have been 1387 users of the uk heirarchy.
>> In the 7 days ending 20130307 there were 1531.
>> A fall of 9 percent in two months. That's a lot of holiday.
>
> QUICK!!! We have to save USENET.
> Lower standards.
> Invent the FOUNDATION USENET.
> Lets come up with some silly thing and lets call it PROGRESSIVE USENET.

>
> oh.... theres the smiley
>
> :-)

ROFL!



--
Spike

[Spike]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 19:18:10 +0000, Anton Deque wrote:

> Now see, to me, that sounds like this group as it already is. Ignore the
> irrelevance of the 'crapflood' and you have a core group of users who
> will band together to drive out any opinion that doesn't agree with
> their shared view of the world. It's not a good place to be pro RSGB for
> instance.

That's because the RSGB is hard to defend, not because there are people who ask awkward questions (but
rarely get any informative replies).

--
Spike

[Spike]

Perhaps uk.rec.cycling.moderated is an example, where the words 'puncture' and 'helmet' are frequently
asterisked, and the unmoderated version, and uk.net.news.moderation, are full of posts like 'Unfair URCM
rejection no. 69969'.

--
Spike

[Anton Deque]

Let's be honest, Spike. It's Usenet - it's not important. But how many
amateurs do you think use this group? 10? I think we could do much
better.

Apples & oranges, or maybe bitter lemons & raspberries, but the new group
comp.sys.raspberry-pi got 700+ posts in its first full month. So it's
still possible to attract new users - if you have something they want.

[Anton Deque]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 22:21:22 +0100, Hils wrote:

> On 10/05/13 21:24, Anton Deque wrote:

>> Let's be honest, Spike. It's Usenet - it's not important. But how many
>> amateurs do you think use this group? 10? I think we could do much
>> better.
>

> One of the quickest ways for amateur radio in the UK to "do better" is
> for Ofcom to have nothing further to do with the RSCB and talk with
> licensees instead.

Which licensees?

>> Apples& oranges, or maybe bitter lemons& raspberries, but the new

>> group comp.sys.raspberry-pi got 700+ posts in its first full month. So
>> it's still possible to attract new users - if you have something they
>> want.
>

> And notably it's not a moderated group.

"Apples & Oranges".

[Brian Reay]

Look at who uses language like that on this group, or thinks it adds
'colour' to our language?
It is those arguing against a moderated group on the grounds of
'restrictions'.

[Spike]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 21:27:48 +0000, Brian Reay wrote:

> Anton Deque <an...@dec.tum.invalid> wrote:

>> But surely if you have a compelling argument it can just as easily be
>> put forward in a moderated group? If the moderators turn out to be
>> biased it will soon become apparent, and what have you lost? The chance
>> to call someone a twat?
>
> Look at who uses language like that on this group, or thinks it adds
> 'colour' to our language?

Guess who said these two things today, sans smiley:

"this all just strikes me as so much bollocks"

"I don't deny that I'd likely fuck it up"

> It is those arguing against a moderated group on the grounds of
> 'restrictions'.

The clue is that he's strongly in favour of moderated groups, so that's your pet theory dead in the water.

Don't bother apologising.

--
Spike

[Jimbo ...]

I didn't feel left out of that at all........she is a good girl she
is...anyway I'm glad she is back.....

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

Poor old Spike. Gotten to, badly.

--
Stephen Thomas Cole - Sent from my iPhone so please forgive any spelling
mistakes or botched snipping.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

Spike <Sp...@AeroSpike.invalid> wrote:
> On Fri, 10 May 2013 18:57:19 +0100, Brian Reay wrote:
>
>> On 10/05/13 18:15, Molly Mockford wrote:
>>> At 16:14:40 on Fri, 10 May 2013, Stephen Thomas Cole
>>> <REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote in
>>> <REMOVEsteve.t.col...@192.168.0.139>:
>>>
>>>> Molly, I'm sorry, but this all just strikes me as so much bollocks.
>>>> Whilst there is certainly a perfectly sound argument to be made in
>>>> favour of employing extensive kill-filing, there is a much greater one
>>>> to be made in favour of providing a space where such is not an
>>>> absolute requirement for pleasurable use. Now, I think it's pretty
>>>> clear, and has been throughout,
>>>> that you've nailed your colours to the mast of filtering, so I'll not
>>>> waste my time debating it, beyond saying that I find such a thought
>>>> process entirely defeatist and utterly nihilistic.
>>>
>>> No, Stephen, it's the way Usenet works, and the way it worked long
>>> before even DejaNews began. (I'm sure I don't need to explain how
>>> DejaNews became Deja and then became Google Groups and then became
>>> GoogleGroups...) People are expected to look after themselves, not to
>>> be spoonfed. If people insist on using an interface like GoogleGroups
>>> which has no killfile capability, that's their choice; they can have a
>>> newsfeed and a newsreader totally free of charge, and do it properly.
>>> Usenet newsgroups are not created for the convenience of GoogleGroups
>>> users.
>>
>> That is your opinion of "how things should be", perhaps Steve's view
>> differs. Do you not accept that others my hold a different view? Perhaps
>> others wish to join a moderated group. What gives you the right to
>> prevent the formation of one or to prevent them from joining it?
>>
>> Unless you are forced to join or they are arguing that the existing
>> group be changed, then why does it impact you? Of course, you could be
>> worried that this group 'dwindles' as the other group grows, and the
>> "case" against the other group is disproved.
>>
>> Strange isn't it, how those who CLAIM to be "free thinkers" are in fact
>> the ones wanting to restrict others.
>
> Well here's what St Stephanus Secundus said to Molly a little earlier;
> comments thus [...] are mine.
>
> -----
>
> Molly, I'm sorry, but this all just strikes me as so much bollocks [A
> reasoned response, not].
>
> Whilst there is certainly a perfectly sound argument to be made in favour of
> employing extensive kill-filing [which I am about to take no notice of]
> there is a much greater one to be made in
> favour of providing a space where such is not an absolute requirement for
> pleasurable use [My argument trumps yours, without my developing any reasons as to why].
>
> Now, I think it's pretty clear [That's my argument, it's the only one
> that counts, you can stuff yours] and has been
> throughout, that you've nailed your colours to the mast of filtering
> [whereas I am the soul of moderation,
> IYSWIM, despite nailing my colours to the moderation mast] so I'll not
> waste my time debating it [because I can't, perhaps] beyond saying that I
> find such a thought
> process entirely defeatist and utterly nihilistic [So no
> counter-arguments will be entertained].
>
> -----
>
> Molly has presented a reasonable position, and defended it, but St
> Stephanus II has done neither. Perhaps your
> criticisms should be headed his way rather than Molly's.
>
> Did I forget the smiley? By George, that'll never do!

Poor old Spike's having rather the nervous breakdown here, it seems.

[Jimbo ...]

>
> Poor old Spike. Gotten to, badly.
>

nobody gets to Spike ........you new here? ......

[Jimbo ...]

>
> Poor old Spike's having rather the nervous breakdown here, it seems.
>

doubt it...he has seen dozens like you off ........

[gareth]

"Jimbo ..." <james.st...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:kmktna$mli$1...@dont-email.me...

>
>>
>> Poor old Spike. Gotten to, badly.
>>
>
> nobody gets to Spike ........you new here? ......

Would that be the denizen of the Bishop's Palace to whom you
address your reply?

[RipeCrisbies]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 07:18:10 +0000, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

> Poor old Spike's having rather the nervous breakdown here, it seems.

Is this the reasoned response we might expect from a moderator? Hardly
neutral or balanced. It could well be deemed offensive by those who
suffer or have suffered from mental health issues.



--
M0WYM
Sales @ radiowymsey
http://sales-at-radio-wymsey.ebid.net/
http://stores.ebay.co.uk/Sales-At-Radio-Wymsey/

[RipeCrisbies]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 19:18:10 +0000, Anton Deque wrote:

> It's not a good place to be pro RSGB for instance.

I'm a member of the RSGB and don't keep it a secret, I don't get abused
by those against the RSGB. I do get flac from a bitter one who was kicked
out of the inner sanctum and one who is obsessively anti- RSGB. Luckily
the kill file gets rid of the first and I am in the latter's killfile.

It's easy to respond to the anti-RSGB stuff by humour or by ignoring it.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

Hils <hi...@saynotospam.net> wrote:

> On 11/05/13 13:53, RipeCrisbies wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 May 2013 07:18:10 +0000, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
>>
>>> Poor old Spike's having rather the nervous breakdown here, it seems.
>>
>> Is this the reasoned response we might expect from a moderator? Hardly
>> neutral or balanced. It could well be deemed offensive by those who
>> suffer or have suffered from mental health issues.
>

> He's lashing out at people who have bested him in argument. People with
> personality disorders can do that.

Poor old Spike was floundering, having been gotten to.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

RipeCrisbies <Gnom...@lympledger.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 11 May 2013 07:18:10 +0000, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
>
>> Poor old Spike's having rather the nervous breakdown here, it seems.
>
> Is this the reasoned response we might expect from a moderator? Hardly
> neutral or balanced. It could well be deemed offensive by those who
> suffer or have suffered from mental health issues.
>
>

Considering that this group is not moderated and that I am not acting as a
moderator, I don't really see that any link can be made with this post and
my potential future role in the putative moderated group. It's a bit petty
to try and force one, frankly.

[Anton Deque]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 10:50:38 +0000, MM3QRO/MM wrote:


> The person you quote appears to be feeling lonely. Perhaps he/she is
> confusing people who agree with each other with some sort of banding
> together?

Sniping from behind a kill-file - how very, um... wanky.

> Even Len(v1.0) and I agree that the current FL is a disaster. I
> certainly would not suggest that Len(v1.0) and I are banding together.

I think Len has said something like that, but as it's something I don't
believe I've ever mentioned, let alone expressed an opinion on, I've no
idea why you brought it up.

<obsessive nonsense snipped>

[RipeCrisbies]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 13:52:08 +0000, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

> I don't really see that any link can be made with this post and my
> potential future role in the putative moderated group. It's a bit petty
> to try and force one, frankly.

That you don't see the link between behaviour/attitude in one situation
and how one might behave in another does not bode well for your role as a
moderator. Ditto calling something petty because you do not understand
it.

People are consistent, our underlying behaviour and attitude is much the
same wherever we go. It's a valuable lesson for those in any kind of
management role. For instance, in this group you can see how Brian Raey
and Gareth behave and however they start out in another group they tend
towards how they behave the way we can observe here.