Google Groups doesn't update, but still accepts postings (the fix is to use nntp.aioe.org and Outlook Express))
31 views
Skip to first unread message
Brad Guth
Jun 28, 2011, 8:29:36 PM6/28/11
to Google Usenet
The alternative to Google Groups version of Usenet/newsgroups is not
as user friendly or all that simple to set up for the first time, but
it's doable.
http://aioe.org/index.php?terms-of-use
http://help.yahoo.com/l/sg/yahoo/mail/classic/mailoptions/pop/pop-06.html
http://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=13276
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
Because our Google Groups version of Usenet is currently dysfunctional
by not updating, you may instead have to reply to this topic by using
my Google-Usenet version that’s public and still fully operational,
updating very quickly and otherwise pretty much the same posting/
reading format as regular Google Groups.
http://groups.google.com/group/google-usenet?hl=en
as user friendly or all that simple to set up for the first time, but
it's doable.
http://aioe.org/index.php?terms-of-use
http://help.yahoo.com/l/sg/yahoo/mail/classic/mailoptions/pop/pop-06.html
http://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=13276
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
Because our Google Groups version of Usenet is currently dysfunctional
by not updating, you may instead have to reply to this topic by using
my Google-Usenet version that’s public and still fully operational,
updating very quickly and otherwise pretty much the same posting/
reading format as regular Google Groups.
http://groups.google.com/group/google-usenet?hl=en
American
Jun 29, 2011, 5:51:36 AM6/29/11
to Google Usenet
Brad, I found this piece interesting, from http://aioe.org/index.php?terms-of-use
"All users must must follow the USENET netiquette, a set of
social conventions that facilitate interaction over USENET.
Many documents, like Newsreaders.com netiquette explanation
or USENET and Mailing List posting netiquette or The Zen
and the art of Internet chapter about USENET, explain
which behaviours are polite or unpolite when one writes a
USENET post. All users must read them before starting
to post their articles."
My Comment:
I wonder how many in the former Google Groups e.g.
alt.astronomy, sci.space.policy, alt.sci.physics, sci.sceptic,
etc., etc., might disqualify themselves according to the above
explanation? Curiously, maybe that's why G.Groups may have
been seen as "going downhill", which is why the hatchet job...
Too bad all those trains of thought got lost in the Groups
archives, but at least they're still accessible (for now, anyway)
Now we can see what led up to the demise of our culture,
as being the "invalidation complex" of so many that dared
never to think outside the box of their own status quo, and
by being brave and fearless, would defend their right to
have an opinion that deserved attention from others just
like themselves - invalidators! It fits nicely with what would
end up being the bipolar nature of our voting pattern:
conservative -> liberal -> conservative -> liberal, and so
forth, except that this time, I think we've bottomed out of
political parties always being the exception to our common
sense rules, as long as the Federal Reserve Debtor Notes
have anything to do with (our?!?) spending habits.
"The relentless bipartisan focus on the deficit convinces
voters to be worried about it, which in turn leads lawmakers
to spend still more time talking about it and less time
talking about the economy."
- Greg Sargent, from "Here it is: Scientific proof of the
`Beltway Deficit Feedback Loop’, The Plum Line
American
Interesting Info on AIOE:
http://maxx.gmaonline.org/uploadFiles/17C82200000310.filename.PerrySchlegel.pdf
On Jun 28, 5:29 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The alternative to Google Groups version of Usenet/newsgroups is not
> as user friendly or all that simple to set up for the first time, but
> it's doable.
>
> http://aioe.org/index.php?terms-of-use
>
> http://help.yahoo.com/l/sg/yahoo/mail/classic/mailoptions/pop/pop-06....
"All users must must follow the USENET netiquette, a set of
social conventions that facilitate interaction over USENET.
Many documents, like Newsreaders.com netiquette explanation
or USENET and Mailing List posting netiquette or The Zen
and the art of Internet chapter about USENET, explain
which behaviours are polite or unpolite when one writes a
USENET post. All users must read them before starting
to post their articles."
My Comment:
I wonder how many in the former Google Groups e.g.
alt.astronomy, sci.space.policy, alt.sci.physics, sci.sceptic,
etc., etc., might disqualify themselves according to the above
explanation? Curiously, maybe that's why G.Groups may have
been seen as "going downhill", which is why the hatchet job...
Too bad all those trains of thought got lost in the Groups
archives, but at least they're still accessible (for now, anyway)
Now we can see what led up to the demise of our culture,
as being the "invalidation complex" of so many that dared
never to think outside the box of their own status quo, and
by being brave and fearless, would defend their right to
have an opinion that deserved attention from others just
like themselves - invalidators! It fits nicely with what would
end up being the bipolar nature of our voting pattern:
conservative -> liberal -> conservative -> liberal, and so
forth, except that this time, I think we've bottomed out of
political parties always being the exception to our common
sense rules, as long as the Federal Reserve Debtor Notes
have anything to do with (our?!?) spending habits.
"The relentless bipartisan focus on the deficit convinces
voters to be worried about it, which in turn leads lawmakers
to spend still more time talking about it and less time
talking about the economy."
- Greg Sargent, from "Here it is: Scientific proof of the
`Beltway Deficit Feedback Loop’, The Plum Line
American
Interesting Info on AIOE:
http://maxx.gmaonline.org/uploadFiles/17C82200000310.filename.PerrySchlegel.pdf
On Jun 28, 5:29 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The alternative to Google Groups version of Usenet/newsgroups is not
> as user friendly or all that simple to set up for the first time, but
> it's doable.
>
> http://aioe.org/index.php?terms-of-use
>
Message has been deleted
Brad Guth
Jun 29, 2011, 11:54:02 AM6/29/11
to Google Usenet
Google Plus (Google+) is a likely cause of all this USENET dysfunction
of not index updating their version of Usenet/newsgroups. Server
overloads and basic data/archive storage space is becoming a bigger
problem (especially complex when mirroring via disrupted global
servers gets involved), not to mention the added staff plus global
energy consumption required for keeping each category or whatever
social/media groups of applications going strong.
No doubt whatsoever that this was an inside job. Even the upper most
social/political and certainly faith-based caste within Google NOVA
would have wanted their public accessible version of Google Usenet/
newsgroups to either fail or become dysfunctional, and lord knows the
army of mostly public-funded GOP/ZNR redneck FUD-masters were each
doing all they could to make this service at best unreliable, because
it was making it too easy for the average global public to access,
investigate, publish and/or reply to whatever topics within any number
of preexisting unmoderated newsgroups.
I'm thinking that Google Groups will likely restart updating their
index, with a new and improved list of available newsgroups
(eliminating or archiving inactive newsgroups that haven't had any
activity for a year), and perhaps it'll have to include a robo-
enforcement on behalf of at least some of the basic USENET netiquette
rules. A long time ago I'd offered to replace those 5 gold stars with
a rating system of 0-10, whereas a vote status of 10 would indicate
something like a 99% approval, and otherwise a vote of zero
representing a 99% disapproval that'll divert or move any topic after
24 hours having a zero rating via our votes of 0-10, into a sub-
newsgroup (aka whatever newsgroup.trash) and at the same time place
restrictions or limitations on the topic/reply authors that simply
can't behave.
This new topic/reply rating method gives even those truly bad or
despicable topics or replies a minimum of 24 hours to gain at least a
vote rating of 1 or higher. Of course this isn't a perfect solution
because individuals can obviously cheat as they always have, although
such cheating should be traceable and thus sufficiently identified as
bogus or fraud that'll get the contributor plus any associated
accounts voted down to having access to posting one topic or reply per
day.
There's no good reason to entirely cut-off every bad or nasty
contributor, but instead restrict their nasty or dysfunctional
postings down to once per day, should do the trick of making at least
some of them behave better than the usual bipolar FUD-master that
essentially hates everyone.
As is, Google Groups version of Usenet/newsgroups is taboo/forbidden
to K12s and most higher education levels, because their local/school/
university servers don't make it easy or in many instances even
possible for them to access our private groups or these public
newsgroup topics. At least Hitler and most other Fascism warlords
would have approved of such.
On Jun 29, 2:51 am, American <samuelran...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Brad, I found this piece interesting, fromhttp://aioe.org/index.php?terms-of-use
> http://maxx.gmaonline.org/uploadFiles/17C82200000310.filename.PerrySc...
of not index updating their version of Usenet/newsgroups. Server
overloads and basic data/archive storage space is becoming a bigger
problem (especially complex when mirroring via disrupted global
servers gets involved), not to mention the added staff plus global
energy consumption required for keeping each category or whatever
social/media groups of applications going strong.
No doubt whatsoever that this was an inside job. Even the upper most
social/political and certainly faith-based caste within Google NOVA
would have wanted their public accessible version of Google Usenet/
newsgroups to either fail or become dysfunctional, and lord knows the
army of mostly public-funded GOP/ZNR redneck FUD-masters were each
doing all they could to make this service at best unreliable, because
it was making it too easy for the average global public to access,
investigate, publish and/or reply to whatever topics within any number
of preexisting unmoderated newsgroups.
I'm thinking that Google Groups will likely restart updating their
index, with a new and improved list of available newsgroups
(eliminating or archiving inactive newsgroups that haven't had any
activity for a year), and perhaps it'll have to include a robo-
enforcement on behalf of at least some of the basic USENET netiquette
rules. A long time ago I'd offered to replace those 5 gold stars with
a rating system of 0-10, whereas a vote status of 10 would indicate
something like a 99% approval, and otherwise a vote of zero
representing a 99% disapproval that'll divert or move any topic after
24 hours having a zero rating via our votes of 0-10, into a sub-
newsgroup (aka whatever newsgroup.trash) and at the same time place
restrictions or limitations on the topic/reply authors that simply
can't behave.
This new topic/reply rating method gives even those truly bad or
despicable topics or replies a minimum of 24 hours to gain at least a
vote rating of 1 or higher. Of course this isn't a perfect solution
because individuals can obviously cheat as they always have, although
such cheating should be traceable and thus sufficiently identified as
bogus or fraud that'll get the contributor plus any associated
accounts voted down to having access to posting one topic or reply per
day.
There's no good reason to entirely cut-off every bad or nasty
contributor, but instead restrict their nasty or dysfunctional
postings down to once per day, should do the trick of making at least
some of them behave better than the usual bipolar FUD-master that
essentially hates everyone.
As is, Google Groups version of Usenet/newsgroups is taboo/forbidden
to K12s and most higher education levels, because their local/school/
university servers don't make it easy or in many instances even
possible for them to access our private groups or these public
newsgroup topics. At least Hitler and most other Fascism warlords
would have approved of such.
On Jun 29, 2:51 am, American <samuelran...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Brad, I found this piece interesting, fromhttp://aioe.org/index.php?terms-of-use
American
Jun 29, 2011, 2:18:41 PM6/29/11
to Google Usenet
Ah, yes, Google revamps their social contact media, rather
than "tweak" the one they've already got:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-20075124-17/google-resets-social-agenda-with-google/
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/06/introducing-google-project-real-life.html
The problem of G. Groups being "hacked to death" IMO is about
the bureaucracy attempting to insert themselves into the social
networking process, i.e. creating a much larger "monster" than
they had in the first place. Many new ideas adopting the free
and abundant energy argument will get further diluted into
the rhetoric of "my situational ethic is more important than
yours", when it remains to be seen: What was the corporate
lobbyist's mousetrap attempting to do in the first place, besides
continue to walk in lockstep with the regime that we, the free
citizens, now find ourselves stuck with?
Government creates the problem. Government creates a program
to solve the problem. The problem exacerbates, and the govern-
ment creates another program in order to expand its influence,
and further destroy the private sector. After doing this, the
propogandizing state-run media puts a face on the people, who
will get hurt in big G's own process of destroying the private
sector.
Willful ignorance becomes their target, using the criminal, FUD
propoganda tactic.
I'm not criticizing the creation of the forum by software engineers
to provide the medium of social exchange; It's evident that the
current administration did not like the criticism by newsgroups
(and especially Google's) casting a very dim light on their
collusion with the Fed. It would seem that this was a
bureaucratically influenced tactic, rather than a strategy to
introduce a much better interface for usenet, and it was probably
originally an FUD tactic used against Google.
American
"The relentless bipartisan focus on the deficit convinces
voters to be worried about it, which in turn leads lawmakers
to spend still more time talking about it and less time
talking about the economy."
- Greg Sargent, from "Here it is: Scientific proof of the
`Beltway Deficit Feedback Loop’, The Plum Line
than "tweak" the one they've already got:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-20075124-17/google-resets-social-agenda-with-google/
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/06/introducing-google-project-real-life.html
The problem of G. Groups being "hacked to death" IMO is about
the bureaucracy attempting to insert themselves into the social
networking process, i.e. creating a much larger "monster" than
they had in the first place. Many new ideas adopting the free
and abundant energy argument will get further diluted into
the rhetoric of "my situational ethic is more important than
yours", when it remains to be seen: What was the corporate
lobbyist's mousetrap attempting to do in the first place, besides
continue to walk in lockstep with the regime that we, the free
citizens, now find ourselves stuck with?
Government creates the problem. Government creates a program
to solve the problem. The problem exacerbates, and the govern-
ment creates another program in order to expand its influence,
and further destroy the private sector. After doing this, the
propogandizing state-run media puts a face on the people, who
will get hurt in big G's own process of destroying the private
sector.
Willful ignorance becomes their target, using the criminal, FUD
propoganda tactic.
I'm not criticizing the creation of the forum by software engineers
to provide the medium of social exchange; It's evident that the
current administration did not like the criticism by newsgroups
(and especially Google's) casting a very dim light on their
collusion with the Fed. It would seem that this was a
bureaucratically influenced tactic, rather than a strategy to
introduce a much better interface for usenet, and it was probably
originally an FUD tactic used against Google.
American
"The relentless bipartisan focus on the deficit convinces
voters to be worried about it, which in turn leads lawmakers
to spend still more time talking about it and less time
talking about the economy."
- Greg Sargent, from "Here it is: Scientific proof of the
`Beltway Deficit Feedback Loop’, The Plum Line
Brad Guth
Jun 29, 2011, 3:32:15 PM6/29/11
to Google Usenet
You are aware that Google also owns/underwrites the controlling
interest in NOVA (PBS)?
You can see how keeping the public snookered and dumbfounded past the
point of no return is so critically important, as to sustaining their
mainstream status-quo regardless of which side wins the next war(s).
http://groups.google.com/group/google-usenet/topics?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/guth-usenet/topics?hl=en
interest in NOVA (PBS)?
You can see how keeping the public snookered and dumbfounded past the
point of no return is so critically important, as to sustaining their
mainstream status-quo regardless of which side wins the next war(s).
http://groups.google.com/group/google-usenet/topics?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/guth-usenet/topics?hl=en
On Jun 29, 11:18 am, American <samuelran...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Ah, yes, Google revamps their social contact media, rather
> than "tweak" the one they've already got:
>
> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-20075124-17/google-resets-social-ag...http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/06/introducing-google-project-rea...
> Ah, yes, Google revamps their social contact media, rather
> than "tweak" the one they've already got:
>
herbert glazier
Jul 1, 2011, 8:22:29 AM7/1/11
to google...@googlegroups.com
Google groups are thumbs down. Showing posts that are days old. People 0 Google 10 TreBert
Brad Guth
Jul 1, 2011, 4:37:49 PM7/1/11
to google...@googlegroups.com
This is a problem, but given another couple days should get us back to normal.
Get some wise-ass 5th grader to set up "Outlook Express" or some other
method of accessing free Usenet/newsgroup servers other than Google
(such as nntp.aioe.org), at least handy as a plan-B for the next time
they manage to shut down our public media access for publishing and/or
replying to whatever is on the mind.
http://aioe.org/index.php?home
http://aioe.org/index.php?terms-of-use
Otherwise keep using this "Google Usenet" as a free and always
accessible public channel that doesn't seem to get nailed by hackers
or insiders that are always trying to subvert and/or exclude our
efforts.
RomMittney
Aug 1, 2011, 10:26:38 AM8/1/11
to Google Usenet
Let's just assume the limpwrists at Google wish to censor Groups out
of existence. They simply could take no more ultra-liberal posts.
Call it an era.
of existence. They simply could take no more ultra-liberal posts.
Call it an era.
Brad Guth
Aug 1, 2011, 3:24:28 PM8/1/11
to Google Usenet
If ultra-liberal means allowing and/or accepting new or improved ides
and interpretations with an open mind-set, then where's the problem?
At least being ultra-liberal would be a whole lot better off than
being ultra-stupid, ultra-arrogant, ultra-corrupt, ultra-Semitic or
ultra-whatever makes those GOP/ZNR rednecks happy campers.
Call it a good move.
and interpretations with an open mind-set, then where's the problem?
At least being ultra-liberal would be a whole lot better off than
being ultra-stupid, ultra-arrogant, ultra-corrupt, ultra-Semitic or
ultra-whatever makes those GOP/ZNR rednecks happy campers.
Call it a good move.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages