On Sat, 29 Aug 2020 22:23:16 -0400, Paul wrote:
> I wasn't aware that "USENET had a strategic purpose".
Hi Paul, (fup to a.c.f & m.p.w.g respected),
That's a good point of view, where, of course, Usenet has a strategic
purpose, which may or may not be known or comprehended by each of us.
Just like any communications venue, whether it be a web forum, a telephone
hotline, a newspaper outlet, etc., has a strategic purpose, again, which
may or may not be known or comprehended by each of us.
One strategic purpose which is apparently not known to many on Usenet is
that it's a useful no-login web-searchable permanent archive of value.
For example, I'm setting up that BSOD system, where there are literally
scores of tweaks that I had learned about in the past few years that I
needed to dig up the solutions for, in order to re-tweak the new setup.
Many of those you helped me with - which I appreciate - and some of those
we all failed at (such as dual monitors both having the taskbar system tray
- although I'm testing a reputed workaround using DisplayFusion freeware:
o <
https://www.displayfusion.com/FAQ/#freeversion>
With your help, and that of the 1 out of 1,000... we have solved many
technical problems together, all of which are permanently archived for the
intelligent few to obtain via web searches to these very newsgroups, e.g.,
o <
http://tinyurl.com/alt-comp-freeware>
o <
http://tinyurl.com/windowsxp-general>
> I wonder what that purpose might be ? <scratches head>
My point to you, is that my only strategic purpose for Usenet is to either
create and disseminate, or to obtain and implement solutions of value.
I agree others may have far less lofty goals, where, for example, common
worthless pieces of shit simply are on Usenet for their own amusement.
For example, this TPayne nym (<
tp...@nr.net>
eternal-september.org,
Thunderbird/52.5.0) has never once added anything of value to Usenet, where
I suspect it's just yet another nym of Pooh, like Jenny Telia apparently
is; but even if it is not, it doesn't matter as none of those three have
ever contributed even a single thread of value in their entire existence.
> Over in comp.unix.programmer, it's pretty obvious what
> USENET was intended for. A spamming session from
groups.google.com
> where the Abuse button no longer works :-)
It seems like only decades ago that we used to complain to the
administrator of a domain when we received the occasional spam (well before
the word "spam" was commonly accepted.
The only thing I do with the worthless pieces of shit is ignore them (i.e.,
not feed them) on threads I don't care come to a technical solution.
For threads I do care to come to a technical solution, once the worthless
pieces of shit have infested it, it's _already_ ruined in terms of
answering the question - so I intentionally point to what the worthless
pieces of shit write - where my strategic intent is to make it "less fun"
for them.
For some, like Alan Baker or Snit, it's impossible; but for others, they
still have a shred of common human decency left, and they "may" go off and
infest other threads as a result.
In the case of Pooh, Telia, and this TPayne nym, they have no decency left.
o So you'll notice I simply ignored this reputed TPayne nym of Pooh's.
> And at least one poster replied to a spam post with "de-peer Google Groups now!".
Some prior useful newsgroups are now unreadable, e.g., alt.home.repair has
been destroyed by those who are on Usenet purely for their pwn amusement.
o <
http://tinyurl.com/alt-home-repair>
> If the Cabal is listening, I heartily agree.
What I use Usenet for is obtain or disseminate 1 thing, & 1 thing only:
o Technical value
That's why I'm different than many, and you too are quite different from
many because of (at least) two endearing qualities you possess:
1. You're purposefully helpful, and,
2. You're knowledgeable.
I could easily list many worthless pieces of shit who are infinitely always
a. Not purposefully helpful
b. Are ignorati
> A dead administrator (probably slumped over at his desk at Google),
> is a useless administrator.
I admire that you seem to handle the ignorati far better than I do.
o For me, my strategy for the ignorati is half & half
A. On threads I don't care about, I ignore the worthless pieces of shit.
B. On threads I care about coming to an answer, I point out what they are.
Overall, on these newsgroups, the worthless pieces of shit outnumber the
intelligent few by at least a hundred to one, maybe a thousand to one.
Yet, still, Usenet is a wonderfully rich archive of useful technical
solutions, which I mine daily as I now set up a new Windows system.
In summary, every time I ask a question of these Usenet newsgroups, I
almost always follow that question through to a satisfactory solution,
which, therefore, is permanently archived for the intelligent few to mine.
--
Those who have never added value to Usenet long ago proved they can't.