Who really give a f**k about the archived Usenet posts?

[Daniel W. Rouse Jr.]

Seriously, who really gives a f**k about the old archived posts these days?
Or any archived Usenet post these days?

Many workplaces don't even care about these posts for background
checks--they simply aren't relevant with more important modern day blogs
such as Blogger or Facebook. Even sites like Social Intelligence--the
Internet background checking site everyone is supposed to fear--only go 7
years back for their online background checks, meaning they obviously don't
sh*t about anything beyond that because they could go back futher... if they
really cared that much. What workplaces use and don't use Social
Intelligence? Not my problem--oh, because they have to disclose it was used
and provide a copy of the background check to the person that was background
checked.

What workplaces actually use Google Groups for their background check??? Up
to 20+ years old archived posts. What the f**k, holy sh*t... are you
actually serious??? If Usenet posts are that much important dirt on a job
candidate--seriously, do I want to work there anyway?

I also know that workers that try to bring up old Usenet posts--usually
they look bad for even trying to report them as relevant to an employee's
performance and/or reputation on the job. To the best of my knowledge--in
one case I know of... two workers at a workplace ended up disciplined as
authorized by HR for reporting another worker's Usenet posts. (Did they use
company resources to Google that employee's Usenet posts on company time?)
Whatever, but it seems that even company HR doesn't even give sh*t about
Usenet posts in the Google Groups archive.

Only Google cares about old archived posts, or archiving new posts! Oh, and
those looking for dirt on someone, I suppose.

But seriously go for it if it is really important to you--search away, see
what you find. I my own case--guaranf**kenteed because that's how Google's
algorithm works--I know that flamewar, disparaging, or embarassing posts
will be first in the search. This isn't new. Guaranf**kenteed that viewing
my Usenet posts without any search will show the earliest posts first... um,
when I was, what? Something close to 19 years old for my first early posts?
You really think I care about those posts... today? Or how someone may judge
me... by Usenet posts alone... today?

Get real folks. Usenet is about trolling some of the time, flamewars some of
the time, informative posts some of the time, being mocked some of the time,
and so on for the Usenet format of discussions. It's people behind a
keyboard typing posts, turns out distributed worldwide for those who may not
have known at first (and now they know). Some have been there for years.
Some have lost interest and quit. Some have just become no longer interested
in one or more newsgroups, but still post in others. Some flat out told a
newsgroup f**k it and also quit that newsgroup. Some discover new groups
that they are intested. That's just the way it works, all of the time. Oh,
and the Google Groups archive has been around for more than 10 years--anyone
just discovering it hasn't found anything new... just new to them.

Those who are late to Usenet--post, lurk and just read the posts, or go to
more relevant blog formats such as Facebook. Actually, it predates Twitter
(which are just as "interesting" in their posts as Usenet was, but Twitter
has a 140 or so character limit). Obviously, more care about Twitter these
days that Usenet.

So again: only Google really cares about old archived posts, or archiving
new posts! Oh, and those looking for dirt on someone, I suppose.

[Daniel W. Rouse Jr.]

And just to follow up... because, you know, I can... to my own post as well
as others' posts

There are a few people who actually use the Google Groups archive to search
for historical purposes, but for the most part it's people looking for dirt.

Beyond the workplace... for those trying to use someone's posting history to
construct an online "dossier" about someone. To dig up and old post from
years ago and respond to it... today, but not in an informative manner. To
throw an old post back at them to disparage or embarass them. To post a
hyperlink to the post for everyone to see. But in a lot of cases, they think
they are so smart sending posts to someone's employer to get them
fired--justified if they posted to Usenet during company time with company
resources only.

Otherwise, like I said before: Who really gives a f**k about the archived
Usenet posts? Except Google. And those looking for dirt.

[Daniel W. Rouse Jr.]

"Daniel W. Rouse Jr." <dwro...@nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
news:XMudnZ8iXO5xqfzM...@o1.com...

Following up yet again--seems like one involved in trying to dig up dirt on
someone (in the workplace) was seen recently talking to someone about
"...[unintelligible] what he did online". LOL, at the front desk of a Dave
and Busters in San Diego, CA. The front desk staff had to have been friends
with them. Otherwise, IMHO, front desk should have politely encouraged them
not to return.

ANY online activity is irrelevant at D&B--all D&B cares about is who plays
games and buys food/drink, all without causing anything that security would
have to act on right away. No one is going to find and eject, nor ban from
future entrance, any customer of D&B. They simply won't care, based on a
single person's report, about someone's online activity.

Learn from it: digging up old Usenet posts dirt on a co-worker and also
presenting them to a manager... either/or or both... at work? Just don't do
it. Your job and future career planning may be the one at risk. The one who
you dug up dirt on may not only keep their current job, but may still get
promoted or find an even better job for their next job.

Learn from it: the person who the dirt was dug up on AND those who know that
person... will likely not acknowledge they who dug up dirt ever again,
especially if they don't have to work with them.

[Daniel W. Rouse Jr.]

So let me say this. I know for a fact one of the managers went around and
told everyone about the "new" discovery of the Google Groups archive. But,
what if I was wrong about who was also involved? What if I was wrong about
one of them up for a suspension? What if I got who was where completely
wrong? Well, then post a correction, get the facts straight, here on Usenet.

I guarantee any libel lawsuit will fail, since the way of correcting Usenet
errors--including incorrect posts--is to post a reply post correcting the
inaccuracies.

[Daniel W. Rouse Jr.]

And that, folks, is the end of this thread. I've already spent too much time
on it, and followups are certainly part of Usenet, but the message is still
clear:

WHO REALLY GIVES A F**K ABOUT THE ARCHIVED USENET POSTS?