Death of the Net, GIF @ ll:00
Shelton Garner
Geeze. Makes me wish HyperUsenet would hurry up and come into
existance so the Outside World would leave Usenet alone.
lee
L. Shelton Bumgarner -- Keeper of the Great Renaming FAQ
Nattering Nabob of Narcissism * http://www.nottowayez.net/~leebum/
ICQ#: 9393354 * "Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time
to reform." -- Mark Twain
Jim Kingdon
> | dilemma. Nobody has figured out a good way to moderate newsgroups
> | consistently, for one.
Hmm, yeah, I'm not sure what they have in mind (maybe they want
retro-moderation with no moderation delay? Hard to tell).
But to be honest I'm just as glad to not have usenet seen as "the
perfect solution to the discussion dilemma". If it were, news.groups
and alt.config would be totally swamped with proposals from people who
Don't Get It. Furthermore, I doubt there is only one solution -
because discussion is fundamentally about people and communities, we
should expect continued diversity.
YoYo
>Geeze. Makes me wish HyperUsenet would hurry up and come into
>existance so the Outside World would leave Usenet alone.
Learn to program and create it. Otherwise shut up about it already.
--
----YoYo------...@tezcat.com------------and stuff------
"Okay, whatever, I'm a pinecone."
-Wednesday
Robotech_Master
>>> Of course, Usenet is not the perfect solution to the discussion
>>> dilemma. Nobody has figured out a good way to moderate newsgroups
>>> consistently, for one.
> Hmm, yeah, I'm not sure what they have in mind (maybe they want
> retro-moderation with no moderation delay? Hard to tell).
My guess is that they mean having the newsgroup marked as moderated at
100% of the Usenet sites that carry it. It's kind of an annoying
problem, y'know, when some sites don't have the group configured right
so all posts from there just disappear...
> But to be honest I'm just as glad to not have usenet seen as "the
> perfect solution to the discussion dilemma". If it were,
> news.groups and alt.config would be totally swamped with proposals
> from people who Don't Get It.
Hear, hear. It's like I posted in the discussion forum for Salon's
article about the new web interfaces to make Usenet "friendlier."
They somehow think that this is going to improve the level of Usenet
usefulness. Heh...yeah, right. It's AOL, WebTV, etc. all over again.
Usenet. Where September never ends.
--
Chris Meadows aka | Co-moderator, rec.toys.transformers.moderated
Robotech_Master | Homepage: <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~robotech/>
robo...@eyrie.org | PGP: <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~robotech/rm.key.txt>
robo...@jurai.net | ICQ UIN: 5477383
pyrrhic defeat
Shelton Garner <lee_s_b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>http://www.zdnet.com/anchordesk/story/story_2569.html
Ah, yes, ZDNET, one of M$'s favorite puppets. Where "journalism" is
only encountered when they misspell it.
rone
--
There is a little Mike Zeares in all of us, waiting to go off and massacre a
village for our own little personal cause.
- Tjames Madison <tja...@pigdog.org>
Jack
Jim Kingdon wrote in message ...
>> | Of course, Usenet is not the perfect solution to the discussion
>> | dilemma. Nobody has figured out a good way to moderate newsgroups
>> | consistently, for one.
>
>Hmm, yeah, I'm not sure what they have in mind (maybe they want
>retro-moderation with no moderation delay? Hard to tell).
Hmm, I get the impression that by "moderation", they may simply be talking
about keeping stuff out that might make the corporate website owner who's
trying to use Usenet for "content", uncomfortable. Like porn-spam, flames,
posts critical of whatever the website is promoting, off-topic digressions,
etc.
I also noticed that they mentioned Talkways in the article, but neglected to
mention how they got tagged for spamming, or the level of hostility that
they generated (Up to and including legal threats.) from people who disliked
being quoted out of context, and having said quotes used as advertising
copy.
>But to be honest I'm just as glad to not have usenet seen as "the
>perfect solution to the discussion dilemma". If it were, news.groups
>and alt.config would be totally swamped with proposals from people who
>Don't Get It. Furthermore, I doubt there is only one solution -
>because discussion is fundamentally about people and communities, we
>should expect continued diversity.
I think that while we're likely to continue seeing proposals every so often
to somehow "integrate" Usenet as "content" into commercial websites, I don't
thing that it's ever really going to take off. IMO, I think that the people
who try are going to continue to find Usenet to be too "messy". Too full of
people with their own opinions that probably won't agree with what the
commercial website owner wants people to see, too full of stuff that's only
of interest to the community of people who make up the newsgroups, etc., for
the sort of people who run corporate websites to be really comfortable with
it.
--
-Jack-
"Death, it's not just for breakfast anymore."