Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
alt.politics.immigration is ruined by a spammer
8 views
Skip to first unread message
Metspitzer
Apr 27, 2013, 10:13:15 PM4/27/13
to
'Lickin' Ass and Fakin' Military Service' is a Proven Fraud, a Proven
Liar, a Proven Thief, and recently a Proven Malicious Poster. She is
the most prolific liar in this newsgroup and also the most prolific
thief of other's writings. She is also a Stolen Valor stain on
America.
'Lickin' Ass and Fakin' Military Service' IS the Democratic Party in
America. She is an admitted election official in VA. This is proof
positive that DemocRATs are the party of Liars, Frauds & Thieves.
Note that when you reply to a Proven Liar you encourage them to
continue lying.
Check out the group.
It could easilly be fixed by using a body filter. Why doesn't Agent
have one?
Liar, a Proven Thief, and recently a Proven Malicious Poster. She is
the most prolific liar in this newsgroup and also the most prolific
thief of other's writings. She is also a Stolen Valor stain on
America.
'Lickin' Ass and Fakin' Military Service' IS the Democratic Party in
America. She is an admitted election official in VA. This is proof
positive that DemocRATs are the party of Liars, Frauds & Thieves.
Note that when you reply to a Proven Liar you encourage them to
continue lying.
Check out the group.
It could easilly be fixed by using a body filter. Why doesn't Agent
have one?
Ralph Fox
Apr 27, 2013, 11:36:38 PM4/27/13
to
On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 22:13:15 -0400, Metspitzer wrote:
[snipped]
Metspitzer
Please take any rants about US political parties
off to the newsgroup us.politics.
--
Kind regards
Ralph
[snipped]
Metspitzer
Please take any rants about US political parties
off to the newsgroup us.politics.
--
Kind regards
Ralph
Metspitzer
Apr 28, 2013, 10:13:37 AM4/28/13
to
On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 15:36:38 +1200, Ralph Fox <-rf-nz-@-.invalid>
wrote:
>On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 22:13:15 -0400, Metspitzer wrote:
>
>[snipped]
>
>
>Metspitzer
>
>Please take any rants about US political parties
>off to the newsgroup us.politics.
It is not a rant about a political party. It is a rant about adding a
body filter to Agent. Agent needs a body filter. Do you not agree?
wrote:
>On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 22:13:15 -0400, Metspitzer wrote:
>
>[snipped]
>
>
>Metspitzer
>
>Please take any rants about US political parties
>off to the newsgroup us.politics.
body filter to Agent. Agent needs a body filter. Do you not agree?
Metspitzer
Apr 28, 2013, 10:16:48 AM4/28/13
to
On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 15:36:38 +1200, Ralph Fox <-rf-nz-@-.invalid>
wrote:
wrote:
>On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 22:13:15 -0400, Metspitzer wrote:
>
>[snipped]
>
>
>Metspitzer
>
>Please take any rants about US political parties
>off to the newsgroup us.politics.
Although the group I was complaining about is for immigration issues,
>
>[snipped]
>
>
>Metspitzer
>
>Please take any rants about US political parties
>off to the newsgroup us.politics.
I took your suggestion and subscribed to us.politics. It is as
screwed up as the immigration group. A simple body filter would fix
that group too.
Jaimie Vandenbergh
Apr 28, 2013, 10:35:00 AM4/28/13
to
[Default] On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 10:16:48 -0400, Metspitzer
Since politics groups are always going to attract argument on both
sides, and everyone thinks that people on the other side are trolls
and idiots, that's business as usual rather than something that needs
fixing.
I handle it by not subbing to any politics groups.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
The person who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the person doing it.
sides, and everyone thinks that people on the other side are trolls
and idiots, that's business as usual rather than something that needs
fixing.
I handle it by not subbing to any politics groups.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
The person who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the person doing it.
Stephen Wolstenholme
Apr 28, 2013, 10:35:44 AM4/28/13
to
usual idiots and spam posters as in other busy group. What is needed
in a body filter?
Steve
--
EasyNN-plus. Neural Networks plus. http://www.easynn.com
SwingNN. Forecast with Neural Networks. http://www.swingnn.com
JustNN. Just Neural Networks. http://www.justnn.com
Metspitzer
Apr 28, 2013, 11:15:04 AM4/28/13
to
On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 15:35:44 +0100, Stephen Wolstenholme
<st...@easynn.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 10:16:48 -0400, Metspitzer <Kilo...@charter.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 15:36:38 +1200, Ralph Fox <-rf-nz-@-.invalid>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 22:13:15 -0400, Metspitzer wrote:
>>>
>>>[snipped]
>>>
>>>
>>>Metspitzer
>>>
>>>Please take any rants about US political parties
>>>off to the newsgroup us.politics.
>>
>>Although the group I was complaining about is for immigration issues,
>>I took your suggestion and subscribed to us.politics. It is as
>>screwed up as the immigration group. A simple body filter would fix
>>that group too.
>
>I use that group with no need for a body filter. There is just the
>usual idiots and spam posters as in other busy group. What is needed
>in a body filter?
>
>Steve
The posters that try to flood and ruin the group post the exact same
<st...@easynn.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 10:16:48 -0400, Metspitzer <Kilo...@charter.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 15:36:38 +1200, Ralph Fox <-rf-nz-@-.invalid>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 22:13:15 -0400, Metspitzer wrote:
>>>
>>>[snipped]
>>>
>>>
>>>Metspitzer
>>>
>>>Please take any rants about US political parties
>>>off to the newsgroup us.politics.
>>
>>Although the group I was complaining about is for immigration issues,
>>I took your suggestion and subscribed to us.politics. It is as
>>screwed up as the immigration group. A simple body filter would fix
>>that group too.
>
>I use that group with no need for a body filter. There is just the
>usual idiots and spam posters as in other busy group. What is needed
>in a body filter?
>
>Steve
text into every message. It takes little effort to do that. It
should take little effort to fix it.
Stephen Wolstenholme
Apr 28, 2013, 12:03:33 PM4/28/13
to
On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 11:15:04 -0400, Metspitzer <Kilo...@charter.net>
wrote:
>The posters that try to flood and ruin the group post the exact same
>text into every message. It takes little effort to do that. It
>should take little effort to fix it.
I have not seen any such posting so perhaps my ISP has done the
filtering.
wrote:
>The posters that try to flood and ruin the group post the exact same
>text into every message. It takes little effort to do that. It
>should take little effort to fix it.
filtering.
Bart Dinnissen
Apr 28, 2013, 12:42:39 PM4/28/13
to
On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 15:35:00 +0100, in
alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent Jaimie Vandenbergh
>I handle it by not subbing to any politics groups.
:)
I handle it by putting a watch filter on the few posters that make sense
and a kill filter on everyone else. Sadly, this means I probably see
less than 1% of the messages.
--
Bart Dinnissen
I hate mysteries. They bug me. They need to be solved.
- Felicity Smoak in 'Arrow'
alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent Jaimie Vandenbergh
<jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>[Default] On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 10:16:48 -0400, Metspitzer
><Kilo...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 15:36:38 +1200, Ralph Fox <-rf-nz-@-.invalid>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 22:13:15 -0400, Metspitzer wrote:
>>>
>>>[snipped]
>>>
>>>
>>>Metspitzer
>>>
>>>Please take any rants about US political parties
>>>off to the newsgroup us.politics.
>>
>>Although the group I was complaining about is for immigration issues,
>>I took your suggestion and subscribed to us.politics. It is as
>>screwed up as the immigration group. A simple body filter would fix
>>that group too.
>
>Since politics groups are always going to attract argument on both
>sides, and everyone thinks that people on the other side are trolls
>and idiots, that's business as usual rather than something that needs
>fixing.
Very true.
>[Default] On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 10:16:48 -0400, Metspitzer
><Kilo...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 15:36:38 +1200, Ralph Fox <-rf-nz-@-.invalid>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 22:13:15 -0400, Metspitzer wrote:
>>>
>>>[snipped]
>>>
>>>
>>>Metspitzer
>>>
>>>Please take any rants about US political parties
>>>off to the newsgroup us.politics.
>>
>>Although the group I was complaining about is for immigration issues,
>>I took your suggestion and subscribed to us.politics. It is as
>>screwed up as the immigration group. A simple body filter would fix
>>that group too.
>
>Since politics groups are always going to attract argument on both
>sides, and everyone thinks that people on the other side are trolls
>and idiots, that's business as usual rather than something that needs
>fixing.
>I handle it by not subbing to any politics groups.
I handle it by putting a watch filter on the few posters that make sense
and a kill filter on everyone else. Sadly, this means I probably see
less than 1% of the messages.
--
Bart Dinnissen
I hate mysteries. They bug me. They need to be solved.
- Felicity Smoak in 'Arrow'
Message has been deleted
Metspitzer
Apr 28, 2013, 3:12:15 PM4/28/13
to
On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 17:03:33 +0100, Stephen Wolstenholme
<st...@easynn.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 11:15:04 -0400, Metspitzer <Kilo...@charter.net>
>wrote:
>
>>The posters that try to flood and ruin the group post the exact same
>>text into every message. It takes little effort to do that. It
>>should take little effort to fix it.
>
>I have not seen any such posting so perhaps my ISP has done the
>filtering.
>
>Steve
Really? Try alt.politics.immigration. The same kook inserts the same
<st...@easynn.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 11:15:04 -0400, Metspitzer <Kilo...@charter.net>
>wrote:
>
>>The posters that try to flood and ruin the group post the exact same
>>text into every message. It takes little effort to do that. It
>>should take little effort to fix it.
>
>I have not seen any such posting so perhaps my ISP has done the
>filtering.
>
>Steve
text in all of the messages. He uses random titles and he takes the
handles of valid posters in the group to basically flood the group
with nonsense.
I wish someone here would either say..........you can filter him by
doing X or yeah he is flooding the group with stuff that could be
handled by using a body filter. Or just add the group to the fleeting
number of valid Usenet groups that are destined to die.
Metspitzer
Apr 28, 2013, 3:13:38 PM4/28/13
to
On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 15:35:44 +0100, Stephen Wolstenholme
<st...@easynn.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 10:16:48 -0400, Metspitzer <Kilo...@charter.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 15:36:38 +1200, Ralph Fox <-rf-nz-@-.invalid>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 22:13:15 -0400, Metspitzer wrote:
>>>
>>>[snipped]
>>>
>>>
>>>Metspitzer
>>>
>>>Please take any rants about US political parties
>>>off to the newsgroup us.politics.
>>
>>Although the group I was complaining about is for immigration issues,
>>I took your suggestion and subscribed to us.politics. It is as
>>screwed up as the immigration group. A simple body filter would fix
>>that group too.
>
>I use that group with no need for a body filter. There is just the
>usual idiots and spam posters as in other busy group. What is needed
>in a body filter?
>
BTW The kook usually strikes around 11PM EST
>On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 10:16:48 -0400, Metspitzer <Kilo...@charter.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 15:36:38 +1200, Ralph Fox <-rf-nz-@-.invalid>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 22:13:15 -0400, Metspitzer wrote:
>>>
>>>[snipped]
>>>
>>>
>>>Metspitzer
>>>
>>>Please take any rants about US political parties
>>>off to the newsgroup us.politics.
>>
>>Although the group I was complaining about is for immigration issues,
>>I took your suggestion and subscribed to us.politics. It is as
>>screwed up as the immigration group. A simple body filter would fix
>>that group too.
>
>I use that group with no need for a body filter. There is just the
>usual idiots and spam posters as in other busy group. What is needed
>in a body filter?
>
The Cook
Apr 28, 2013, 4:51:44 PM4/28/13
to
On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 15:13:38 -0400, Metspitzer <Kilo...@charter.net>
text that they use. Then mark them and delete.
Or just drop out for a while. If no one responds to the jerks they
get tired and move on. Check back occasionally.
--
Susan N.
"Moral indignation is in most cases two percent moral,
48 percent indignation, and 50 percent envy."
Vittorio De Sica, Italian movie director (1901-1974)
wrote:
>On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 15:35:44 +0100, Stephen Wolstenholme
><st...@easynn.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 10:16:48 -0400, Metspitzer <Kilo...@charter.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 15:36:38 +1200, Ralph Fox <-rf-nz-@-.invalid>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 22:13:15 -0400, Metspitzer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>[snipped]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Metspitzer
>>>>
>>>>Please take any rants about US political parties
>>>>off to the newsgroup us.politics.
>>>
>>>Although the group I was complaining about is for immigration issues,
>>>I took your suggestion and subscribed to us.politics. It is as
>>>screwed up as the immigration group. A simple body filter would fix
>>>that group too.
>>
>>I use that group with no need for a body filter. There is just the
>>usual idiots and spam posters as in other busy group. What is needed
>>in a body filter?
>>
>BTW The kook usually strikes around 11PM EST
As soon as you download messages do a global search for some of the
>On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 15:35:44 +0100, Stephen Wolstenholme
><st...@easynn.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 10:16:48 -0400, Metspitzer <Kilo...@charter.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 15:36:38 +1200, Ralph Fox <-rf-nz-@-.invalid>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 22:13:15 -0400, Metspitzer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>[snipped]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Metspitzer
>>>>
>>>>Please take any rants about US political parties
>>>>off to the newsgroup us.politics.
>>>
>>>Although the group I was complaining about is for immigration issues,
>>>I took your suggestion and subscribed to us.politics. It is as
>>>screwed up as the immigration group. A simple body filter would fix
>>>that group too.
>>
>>I use that group with no need for a body filter. There is just the
>>usual idiots and spam posters as in other busy group. What is needed
>>in a body filter?
>>
>BTW The kook usually strikes around 11PM EST
text that they use. Then mark them and delete.
Or just drop out for a while. If no one responds to the jerks they
get tired and move on. Check back occasionally.
--
Susan N.
"Moral indignation is in most cases two percent moral,
48 percent indignation, and 50 percent envy."
Vittorio De Sica, Italian movie director (1901-1974)
Metspitzer
Apr 28, 2013, 5:20:16 PM4/28/13
to
On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 16:51:44 -0400, The Cook <susan_...@yahoo.com>
Yeah. That would be better than adding a function to Agent that would
be useful.
be useful.
Metspitzer
Apr 28, 2013, 5:23:57 PM4/28/13
to
On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 16:51:44 -0400, The Cook <susan_...@yahoo.com>
Thanks for the suggestion.
That would be better than nothing. Still not as good as fixing Agent
though.
Robert Miles
Apr 28, 2013, 11:47:56 PM4/28/13
to
However, they take rather little action on spam until at least two
people report it. Reporting through their web site sometimes gets
action by the next day; reporting the spam by the email method (to
Google Groups) seldom gets much action in the next 6 weeks.
Most other newsgroups servers allow only the email method of reporting
spam, but usually take action by the next weekday.
Would any of you want to try reporting this spam, and see if you can get
the account used to post it cancelled?
Ralph Fox
Apr 29, 2013, 1:59:05 AM4/29/13
to
On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 17:23:57 -0400, Metspitzer wrote:
> That would be better than nothing. Still not as good as fixing Agent
> though.
There is an add-on Hamster, which adds body filtering to Agent
> That would be better than nothing. Still not as good as fixing Agent
> though.
(and to any other newsreader).
One-off configuration
* Configure Hamster to retrieve newsgroup messages from your news server.
* Configure Agent to retrieve newsgroup messages through Hamster.
Regular use
* Use Agent as you normally do to read newsgroups.
* Configure your body filters in Hamster, not in Agent.
Hamster, 'classic' version
http://www.tglsoft.de/freeware_hamster.html (German)
http://www.arcorhome.de/newshamster/tgl/misc/hamster_en.html (English)
Hamster, 'playground' version
http://www.elbiah.de/hamster/
--
Kind regards
Ralph
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Bart Dinnissen
Apr 29, 2013, 7:32:44 AM4/29/13
to
On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 09:35:35 +0200, in
alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent Martin <m...@address.invalid> wrote:
>You mean happily, not sadly. :-)
Well, happily for me, yes. But I feel it's a pity that a peaceful debate
in politics groups is almost impossible. Or most religious groups, for
that matter.
alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent Martin <m...@address.invalid> wrote:
Well, happily for me, yes. But I feel it's a pity that a peaceful debate
in politics groups is almost impossible. Or most religious groups, for
that matter.
Jaimie Vandenbergh
Apr 29, 2013, 7:40:25 AM4/29/13
to
[Default] On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 13:32:44 +0200, Bart Dinnissen
can be tested and (in)validated.
Meta debates about the concepts politics and religion can actually be
perfectly civil and fun. Direct debates about politics and religion
cannot unless everyone's base beliefs are in step - at which point
it's just a circle-jerk rather than a debate, in most cases. Or will
lead to a new party/sect breakaway!
Cheers - Jaimie
--
My swerver room, my patch panels. By the time they figure out why none of the
ports on their floor box work anymore I'll be done, dusted and down the pub
with a pint of something brewed with yeast that was smarter than they are.
-- Matt S Trout, asr
<dinn...@chello.nl> wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 09:35:35 +0200, in
>alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent Martin <m...@address.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 18:42:39 +0200, Bart Dinnissen
>><dinn...@chello.nl> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 15:35:00 +0100, in
>>>alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent Jaimie Vandenbergh
>>><jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>
>>>>Since politics groups are always going to attract argument on both
>>>>sides, and everyone thinks that people on the other side are trolls
>>>>and idiots, that's business as usual rather than something that needs
>>>>fixing.
>>>
>>>Very true.
>>>
>>>>I handle it by not subbing to any politics groups.
>>>
>>>:)
>>>
>>>I handle it by putting a watch filter on the few posters that make sense
>>>and a kill filter on everyone else. Sadly, this means I probably see
>>>less than 1% of the messages.
>>
>>You mean happily, not sadly. :-)
>
>Well, happily for me, yes. But I feel it's a pity that a peaceful debate
>in politics groups is almost impossible. Or most religious groups, for
>that matter.
It's because both of those hinge around Belief, not hypotheses that
>On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 09:35:35 +0200, in
>alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent Martin <m...@address.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 18:42:39 +0200, Bart Dinnissen
>><dinn...@chello.nl> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 15:35:00 +0100, in
>>>alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent Jaimie Vandenbergh
>>><jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>
>>>>Since politics groups are always going to attract argument on both
>>>>sides, and everyone thinks that people on the other side are trolls
>>>>and idiots, that's business as usual rather than something that needs
>>>>fixing.
>>>
>>>Very true.
>>>
>>>>I handle it by not subbing to any politics groups.
>>>
>>>:)
>>>
>>>I handle it by putting a watch filter on the few posters that make sense
>>>and a kill filter on everyone else. Sadly, this means I probably see
>>>less than 1% of the messages.
>>
>>You mean happily, not sadly. :-)
>
>Well, happily for me, yes. But I feel it's a pity that a peaceful debate
>in politics groups is almost impossible. Or most religious groups, for
>that matter.
can be tested and (in)validated.
Meta debates about the concepts politics and religion can actually be
perfectly civil and fun. Direct debates about politics and religion
cannot unless everyone's base beliefs are in step - at which point
it's just a circle-jerk rather than a debate, in most cases. Or will
lead to a new party/sect breakaway!
Cheers - Jaimie
--
My swerver room, my patch panels. By the time they figure out why none of the
ports on their floor box work anymore I'll be done, dusted and down the pub
with a pint of something brewed with yeast that was smarter than they are.
-- Matt S Trout, asr
Jim G.
Apr 29, 2013, 4:29:11 PM4/29/13
to
Jaimie Vandenbergh sent the following on Sun, 28 Apr 2013 15:35:00
+0100:
group. Quite frankly, the idea that anyone would be interested in a
politics newsgroup and *not* be interested in a bunch of extraneous crap
is ... well, beyond bizarre. It'd be like saying that you like steak,
but want a way to avoid the meaty taste.
--
Jim G.
[Insert your favorite clever tagline here.]
+0100:
> [Default] On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 10:16:48 -0400, Metspitzer
> <Kilo...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 15:36:38 +1200, Ralph Fox <-rf-nz-@-.invalid>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 22:13:15 -0400, Metspitzer wrote:
> >>
> >>[snipped]
> >>
> >>
> >>Metspitzer
> >>
> >>Please take any rants about US political parties
> >>off to the newsgroup us.politics.
> >
> >Although the group I was complaining about is for immigration issues,
> >I took your suggestion and subscribed to us.politics. It is as
> >screwed up as the immigration group. A simple body filter would fix
> >that group too.
>
> Since politics groups are always going to attract argument on both
> sides, and everyone thinks that people on the other side are trolls
> and idiots, that's business as usual rather than something that needs
> fixing.
>
> I handle it by not subbing to any politics groups.
I handle it by filtering out any message crossposted to a politics
> <Kilo...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 15:36:38 +1200, Ralph Fox <-rf-nz-@-.invalid>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 22:13:15 -0400, Metspitzer wrote:
> >>
> >>[snipped]
> >>
> >>
> >>Metspitzer
> >>
> >>Please take any rants about US political parties
> >>off to the newsgroup us.politics.
> >
> >Although the group I was complaining about is for immigration issues,
> >I took your suggestion and subscribed to us.politics. It is as
> >screwed up as the immigration group. A simple body filter would fix
> >that group too.
>
> Since politics groups are always going to attract argument on both
> sides, and everyone thinks that people on the other side are trolls
> and idiots, that's business as usual rather than something that needs
> fixing.
>
> I handle it by not subbing to any politics groups.
group. Quite frankly, the idea that anyone would be interested in a
politics newsgroup and *not* be interested in a bunch of extraneous crap
is ... well, beyond bizarre. It'd be like saying that you like steak,
but want a way to avoid the meaty taste.
--
Jim G.
[Insert your favorite clever tagline here.]
Geoff
Apr 29, 2013, 5:07:47 PM4/29/13
to
On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 15:29:11 -0500, Jim G.
<jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>Quite frankly, the idea that anyone would be interested in a
>politics newsgroup and *not* be interested in a bunch of extraneous crap
>is ... well, beyond bizarre. It'd be like saying that you like steak,
>but want a way to avoid the meaty taste.
LMAO. Spot on!
<jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>Quite frankly, the idea that anyone would be interested in a
>politics newsgroup and *not* be interested in a bunch of extraneous crap
>is ... well, beyond bizarre. It'd be like saying that you like steak,
>but want a way to avoid the meaty taste.
Wayne Garmil
May 3, 2013, 1:44:09 PM5/3/13
to
On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 10:13:37 -0400, Metspitzer <Kilo...@charter.net>
wrote:
>It is not a rant about a political party. It is a rant about adding a
>body filter to Agent. Agent needs a body filter. Do you not agree?
Yes, I do agree that a body filter is needed in Agent. I can do it to
a degree with Global Find, but it is not the same as being able to
filter on key words in the body of the message. Not everything can be
caught by an author, subject, or message-id filter, sometimes the
delete criteria is on the contents (since the author and subject are
usually no relation to the body to prevent filtering on them).
The downside of a body filter is it will slow down message retrieval
significantly as every line in the message will have to be checked for
the offending text that triggers the filter. So much as I want a body
filter, it may not be possible/practical.
Wayne
--
Never apply a Star Trek solution to a Babylon 5 problem.
wrote:
>It is not a rant about a political party. It is a rant about adding a
>body filter to Agent. Agent needs a body filter. Do you not agree?
a degree with Global Find, but it is not the same as being able to
filter on key words in the body of the message. Not everything can be
caught by an author, subject, or message-id filter, sometimes the
delete criteria is on the contents (since the author and subject are
usually no relation to the body to prevent filtering on them).
The downside of a body filter is it will slow down message retrieval
significantly as every line in the message will have to be checked for
the offending text that triggers the filter. So much as I want a body
filter, it may not be possible/practical.
Wayne
--
Never apply a Star Trek solution to a Babylon 5 problem.
Metspitzer
May 3, 2013, 3:40:22 PM5/3/13
to
filter option that could be turned off and not slow down message
retrieval, right?
Ralph Fox
May 3, 2013, 3:50:34 PM5/3/13
to
On Fri, 03 May 2013 13:44:09 -0400, Wayne Garmil wrote:
> Yes, I do agree that a body filter is needed in Agent. I can do it to
> a degree with Global Find, but it is not the same as being able to
> filter on key words in the body of the message.
If it is important to you, then use the add-on "Hamster" to provide the
> Yes, I do agree that a body filter is needed in Agent. I can do it to
> a degree with Global Find, but it is not the same as being able to
> filter on key words in the body of the message.
body filtering for Agent.
REF: news:hk1sn893ve7jk44nj...@4ax.com
> The downside of a body filter is it will slow down message retrieval
> significantly as every line in the message will have to be checked for
> the offending text that triggers the filter.
* Most users are binary users.
* A body filter is not practical for binary users because it means
downloading bodies for all messages.
--
Kind regards
Ralph
Metspitzer
May 3, 2013, 7:00:36 PM5/3/13
to
On Sat, 04 May 2013 07:50:34 +1200, Ralph Fox <-rf-nz-@-.invalid>
wrote:
Couldn't that be covered in the binary property schemes?
wrote:
Ralph Fox
May 4, 2013, 4:44:06 AM5/4/13
to
On Fri, 03 May 2013 19:00:36 -0400, Metspitzer wrote:
> Couldn't that be covered in the binary property schemes?
More importantly, the development, testing and support needs to be
> Couldn't that be covered in the binary property schemes?
paid for. You would do better to collect enough money to cover
these costs and put it in escrow. That would be a better strategy
than trying to vote yourself bananas. :-)
--
Kind regards
Ralph
Stephen Wolstenholme
May 4, 2013, 5:27:09 AM5/4/13
to
>On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 15:36:38 +1200, Ralph Fox <-rf-nz-@-.invalid>
>wrote:
>
have never needed a body filter.
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 22:13:15 -0400, Metspitzer wrote:
>>
>>[snipped]
>>
>>
>>Metspitzer
>>
>>Please take any rants about US political parties
>>off to the newsgroup us.politics.
>
>>
>>[snipped]
>>
>>
>>Metspitzer
>>
>>Please take any rants about US political parties
>>off to the newsgroup us.politics.
>
>It is not a rant about a political party. It is a rant about adding a
>body filter to Agent. Agent needs a body filter. Do you not agree?
I've used Agent for text groups since it first became available and
>body filter to Agent. Agent needs a body filter. Do you not agree?
have never needed a body filter.
Message has been deleted
Ralph Fox
May 7, 2013, 5:55:47 AM5/7/13
to
On Mon, 06 May 2013 12:20:25 +0100, Marc Wilson wrote:
> In alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent, (Ralph Fox) wrote in
> <i348o8tccr0bcrq6j...@4ax.com>::
No, Marc. Two corrections to what you wrote:
1) It is not the people who *want* it who count. It is the people
who *pay* for it.
2) It's not whether it is everybody, nor even what percentage it is.
It's the absolute number of people who will pay for it.
The development, testing and support needs to be paid for this feature.
I would guess there are no more than a few hundred Agent users who
would *pay* for an upgrade just to get body filtering. Most Agent
users are either pirates, binary users, people who just find filters
too confusing or difficult, people who would not use body filters
anyway, or people who might use body filtering if it were there but
who would not pay to get it.
If you think that I am wrong, then collect enough money to cover
the costs and put it in escrow.
--
Kind regards
Ralph
> In alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent, (Ralph Fox) wrote in
> <i348o8tccr0bcrq6j...@4ax.com>::
>
> >The other downside is
> > * Most users are binary users.
> > * A body filter is not practical for binary users because it means
> > downloading bodies for all messages.
>
> Again, we have "not everyone wants it so no-one should have it"?
> >The other downside is
> > * Most users are binary users.
> > * A body filter is not practical for binary users because it means
> > downloading bodies for all messages.
>
No, Marc. Two corrections to what you wrote:
1) It is not the people who *want* it who count. It is the people
who *pay* for it.
2) It's not whether it is everybody, nor even what percentage it is.
It's the absolute number of people who will pay for it.
The development, testing and support needs to be paid for this feature.
I would guess there are no more than a few hundred Agent users who
would *pay* for an upgrade just to get body filtering. Most Agent
users are either pirates, binary users, people who just find filters
too confusing or difficult, people who would not use body filters
anyway, or people who might use body filtering if it were there but
who would not pay to get it.
If you think that I am wrong, then collect enough money to cover
the costs and put it in escrow.
--
Kind regards
Ralph
Message has been deleted
Metspitzer
May 7, 2013, 12:49:15 PM5/7/13
to
On Tue, 07 May 2013 21:55:47 +1200, Ralph Fox <-rf-nz-@-.invalid>
wrote:
>On Mon, 06 May 2013 12:20:25 +0100, Marc Wilson wrote:
>
>> In alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent, (Ralph Fox) wrote in
>> <i348o8tccr0bcrq6j...@4ax.com>::
>>
>
>> >The other downside is
>> > * Most users are binary users.
>> > * A body filter is not practical for binary users because it means
>> > downloading bodies for all messages.
>>
>> Again, we have "not everyone wants it so no-one should have it"?
>
>
>No, Marc. Two corrections to what you wrote:
>
>1) It is not the people who *want* it who count. It is the people
> who *pay* for it.
>
I paid for Agent. Body filter and a horizontal scroll bar are the
two features I have requested.
alt.politics.immigration is one of 10 active groups I am still
interested in. Let that one die. Just let them all die and see who
pays for Agent.
wrote:
>On Mon, 06 May 2013 12:20:25 +0100, Marc Wilson wrote:
>
>> In alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent, (Ralph Fox) wrote in
>> <i348o8tccr0bcrq6j...@4ax.com>::
>>
>
>> >The other downside is
>> > * Most users are binary users.
>> > * A body filter is not practical for binary users because it means
>> > downloading bodies for all messages.
>>
>> Again, we have "not everyone wants it so no-one should have it"?
>
>
>No, Marc. Two corrections to what you wrote:
>
>1) It is not the people who *want* it who count. It is the people
> who *pay* for it.
>
two features I have requested.
alt.politics.immigration is one of 10 active groups I am still
interested in. Let that one die. Just let them all die and see who
pays for Agent.
Ralph Fox
May 13, 2013, 4:45:15 AM5/13/13
to
On Tue, 07 May 2013 12:49:15 -0400, Metspitzer wrote:
> alt.politics.immigration is one of 10 active groups I am still
> interested in. Let that one die. Just let them all die and see who
> pays for Agent.
Do the math. Less than 9% of the people in alt.politics.immigration
> alt.politics.immigration is one of 10 active groups I am still
> interested in. Let that one die. Just let them all die and see who
> pays for Agent.
use Agent. The vast majority, over 91%, do not use Agent. Whatever
Agent does or does not do will have only a minimal effect on the
survival of that group.
You have been given two different solutions for body filtering.
Either of these solutions would be far more use to the survival of
the group than would adding body filtering to Agent. Each of them
can be used by the over 2/3 of the group who use NNTP newsreaders,
not just by the under 9% who use Agent. Yet you don't seem to have
lifted a finger to use either one, nor to help others in the group
use them.
--
Kind regards
Ralph
0 new messages