I hate the new Google Groups

13 views
Skip to first unread message

Michael Shell

unread,
Dec 2, 2004, 2:11:44 AM12/2/04
to


Greetings fellow Usenetters,


For a long time I've used Deja News (which later became Google Groups)
to search the Usenet archives and I've never felt the need to consider
an alternative ... until today.

Have you folks tried the new Google Groups recently? Lotsa new flashy
graphics, colors, stupid star icons (a la Ebay), larger fonts and
create-your-own-braindead-groups (a la Yahoo! groups). It seems that as
internet companies evolve, they inevitably dumb things down to the
lowest denominator. A similar thing seems to have happened with the
latest My Yahoo! format.

However, the thing that irks me the most is that they are blocking
the poster's email addresses - you need to register to be able to
reply to the author - which of course opens the door for Google to
ask and require all sorts of things for this "privilege". Now, I
understand that spammers who harvest email addresses from Usenet
are a real problem (but it is not as if posters are powerless to
disguise or encode their addresses - and besides spammers probably
scan posts in real time and have much less desire for the old addresses
in newsgroup archives). However, many times I have been very grateful
to be able to locate a legacy poster - be it to find an old friend,
ask how the problem was eventually resolved, or to share information
that may still be of interest despite the passing of time. Now, this
appears to be off limits to me on an anonymous (cookies and IP
addresses aside) basis.

Google's decision seems to run contrary to the public spirit of Usenet
itself - I feel as though I am cut off from the original poster by
a third party even though the poster may wish to be publicly known.

There are of course ways in which a poster can get around address
blocking through the use of a clever sig. But, what about all those
posts of the past? We can't go back and add encoded "you can contact
me here" headers/sigs to them. Granted, email addresses change, but
you can usually find a poster's current address from their more
recent posts.


You see, if Google ever "went nuts" with regard to access to their
web search engine, I could still survive - AltaVista, Lycos, Yahoo!,
etc. are quite usable as alternatives to Google's web search. But,
what of Usenet searches? In that regard, Google seems to have everyone
by the balls. And I'm afraid they know it.

Are there any existing viable alternatives to Google Groups' Usenet
archive search engine - even ones available on a paid basis?


Cheers,

Michael Shell


utef...@gmail.com

unread,
Dec 2, 2004, 9:22:55 AM12/2/04
to
I am very unhappy w/ the new format as well. But protected email
addresses is good I think.

mike

unread,
Dec 2, 2004, 12:59:59 PM12/2/04
to
> For a long time I've used Deja News (which later became Google Groups)
> to search the Usenet archives and I've never felt the need to consider
> an alternative ... until today.

<SNIP>

Is it feasable to obtain local archives of some newsgroups. In my own
research I often use the same groups over and over. Having my own -
searchable - local archive might be useful.

Is such a thing
a) possible?
b) legal?

How much storage space might one need for such an undertaking.
Obviously mirroring all of usenet is impossible for anyone - but maybe
keeping local archives of one or two favourite groups might be useful.
The sort of newsgroups I use regularly have a total number of posts
over all years around 20,000 - 100,000 posts. Assuming an average of
10K per post (is this reasonable) The larger groups would take up a
gigabyte or so. Put these on DVD and add some searching software and
it would be a useful tool.

It seems to me that if Google is the SOLE controller of all of this
public domain information then it can only be a bad thing.

Any thoughts?
Mike

gswork

unread,
Dec 2, 2004, 12:14:44 PM12/2/04
to
Michael Shell <ne...@michaelshell.org> wrote in message news:<20041202021144.56115ecd@bashir>...

> Greetings fellow Usenetters,
>
>
> For a long time I've used Deja News (which later became Google Groups)
> to search the Usenet archives and I've never felt the need to consider
> an alternative ... until today.

Indeed, if you search usenet for the term "google groups" for the last
couple of days you will see a lot of people reacting to the new groups
- almost all of them negatively! At least beta seems off for a while
now.

The 'normal' interface is clean, easy to follow and makes navigating
threads, searching for old posts (by people, groups, subject or date)
very easy. The new 'beta' manages to ruin everything good about
google groups!

I fear someone did some 'market research' and came to the evidently
wrong conlusions about 'what users want' (the evidence being the
reaction to the beta)

the shame is that Google's "unique selling point" is that it works
well, is fast and has a clean interface. if it becomes another advert
infested, messy looking marketing exercise it'll, ironically, turn
people away. You may aswell Yahoo or MSN if Google joins their ranks
instead of standing cleanly apart from them.

> Have you folks tried the new Google Groups recently? Lotsa new flashy
> graphics, colors, stupid star icons (a la Ebay), larger fonts and
> create-your-own-braindead-groups (a la Yahoo! groups). It seems that as
> internet companies evolve, they inevitably dumb things down to the
> lowest denominator. A similar thing seems to have happened with the
> latest My Yahoo! format.

I don't mind google playing 'yahoo groups' as a seperate venture but
don't like them being intermingled with real usenet groups, the
strength of which has always been that they are *not* like yahoo
groups.

> However, the thing that irks me the most is that they are blocking
> the poster's email addresses - you need to register to be able to
> reply to the author - which of course opens the door for Google to
> ask and require all sorts of things for this "privilege". Now, I
> understand that spammers who harvest email addresses from Usenet
> are a real problem (but it is not as if posters are powerless to
> disguise or encode their addresses - and besides spammers probably
> scan posts in real time and have much less desire for the old addresses
> in newsgroup archives). However, many times I have been very grateful
> to be able to locate a legacy poster - be it to find an old friend,
> ask how the problem was eventually resolved, or to share information
> that may still be of interest despite the passing of time. Now, this
> appears to be off limits to me on an anonymous (cookies and IP
> addresses aside) basis.

Good points, the idea of protecting people by blocking emails is
ineffective as far as usenet goes anyway - this 'feature' of beta is
another messy crossover of their own yahoo-a-like groups and the
seperate unconnected usenet.

> Google's decision seems to run contrary to the public spirit of Usenet
> itself - I feel as though I am cut off from the original poster by
> a third party even though the poster may wish to be publicly known.

i never mind google adding some adverts in order to pay for access to
usenet, a little rent if you will, but turning the whole experience
into a dumbed down marketing nonsense would just make it pointless
using them.

> You see, if Google ever "went nuts" with regard to access to their
> web search engine, I could still survive - AltaVista, Lycos, Yahoo!,
> etc. are quite usable as alternatives to Google's web search. But,
> what of Usenet searches? In that regard, Google seems to have everyone
> by the balls. And I'm afraid they know it.

The irony is that their strength, their appeal to their market has
always been their straight-up competence and clean interface. they'd
shoot themselves in the foot if they diluted themselves to yet another
MSN/Yahoo clone.

> Are there any existing viable alternatives to Google Groups' Usenet
> archive search engine - even ones available on a paid basis?

i may have to join the search...

hope not though. Google may come to their senses and play to their
much admired strengths after all!

shr...@cyberspace.org

unread,
Dec 2, 2004, 1:33:23 PM12/2/04
to
Michael Shell wrote:
> Greetings fellow Usenetters,
>
>
> For a long time I've used Deja News (which later became Google
Groups)
> to search the Usenet archives and I've never felt the need to
consider
> an alternative ... until today.
>

<SNIP>

I agree.

The Google web portal is tuned to allow you to just get the best data
as fast as possible. The new Google groups is the antethesis of this
design philosophy.

The old Deja-News systems was a little convoluted, but not nearly as
hosed up as the new google system is. The old google groups was good
from an interface standpoint, but I think they truncated a huge part of
the Deja-News spool somewhere along the way. Either that, or the search
facilities against the spool were never effectively developed.

Sufficed to say. If Google is going to abandon usenet, then abandon
usenet. Don't do this half-assed Yahoo/usenet merger thing. It makes
for the worst of both and the best of neither.


-Matt

Bert Hyman

unread,
Dec 2, 2004, 12:25:59 PM12/2/04
to
http://www.guymacon.com (Guy Macon) wrote in news:10quhktdqtpp919
@corp.supernews.com:

> What it does do is to
> take us one step down the road where we can only post and email
> through Google rather than the existing emails and newsgroup systems.

How's it do that?

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | be...@visi.com

who me

unread,
Dec 2, 2004, 11:41:26 AM12/2/04
to
utef...@gmail.com wrote in news:1101997375.621212.208890
@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

> I am very unhappy w/ the new format as well. But protected email
> addresses is good I think.

Protected email addreses don't mean that people are protected - remember,
their messages are still available on other USENET servives and software.

All it means is inconvenience for researchers

who me

unread,
Dec 2, 2004, 8:59:01 AM12/2/04
to
I totally agree - the email address thing sucks. It is a researcher's
nightmare.

The old Google Groups is still running on international Google sites.
Try:

http://groups.google.co.uk

when that goes try other Google sites

also - everyone - COMPLAIN to Google


Michael Shell <ne...@michaelshell.org> wrote in

news:20041202021144.56115ecd@bashir:

Guy Macon

unread,
Dec 2, 2004, 11:45:00 AM12/2/04
to

utef...@gmail.com wrote:

>I am very unhappy w/ the new format as well. But protected email
>addresses is good I think.

No. It isn't good. It doesn't protect you from spammers - they
had access to your post when you posted it. What it does do is to


take us one step down the road where we can only post and email
through Google rather than the existing emails and newsgroup systems.

Once they have a monopoly, they can start charging fot the service.

Brian Mailman

unread,
Dec 2, 2004, 1:18:29 PM12/2/04
to
Guy Macon wrote:

> ...What it does do is to take us one step down the road where we can


> only post and email through Google rather than the existing emails
> and newsgroup systems. Once they have a monopoly, they can start
> charging fot the service.

Don't tell Supernews, they'll get ideas.

David Dyer-Bennet

unread,
Dec 2, 2004, 12:34:03 PM12/2/04
to
utef...@gmail.com writes:

> I am very unhappy w/ the new format as well. But protected email
> addresses is good I think.

If people want them "protected", they can do so. I want people to be
able to reach me. And I want to be able to reach people, without
asking Google's permission first. Spammers don't get addresses from
google, they get them from news directly.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd...@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

Andrew - Supernews

unread,
Dec 2, 2004, 7:27:31 PM12/2/04
to
On 2004-12-02, mike <mike_u...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Is it feasable to obtain local archives of some newsgroups. In my own
> research I often use the same groups over and over. Having my own -
> searchable - local archive might be useful.
>
> Is such a thing
> a) possible?
> b) legal?
>
> How much storage space might one need for such an undertaking.
> Obviously mirroring all of usenet is impossible for anyone

Usenet is not that large (once you exclude the binaries) compared to
modern storage systems. A couple of terabytes would be enough for five
or six years, or double that if compressed. The hard part is actually
indexing it all in ways that actually make the data useful.

--
Andrew, Supernews
http://www.supernews.com - individual and corporate NNTP services

Don Aitken

unread,
Dec 2, 2004, 3:23:07 PM12/2/04
to
On 2 Dec 2004 09:59:59 -0800, mike_u...@yahoo.co.uk (mike) wrote:

>> For a long time I've used Deja News (which later became Google Groups)
>> to search the Usenet archives and I've never felt the need to consider
>> an alternative ... until today.
>
><SNIP>
>
>Is it feasable to obtain local archives of some newsgroups. In my own
>research I often use the same groups over and over. Having my own -
>searchable - local archive might be useful.
>
>Is such a thing
>a) possible?

Easy.

>b) legal?
>
Of course.

>How much storage space might one need for such an undertaking.
>Obviously mirroring all of usenet is impossible for anyone - but maybe
>keeping local archives of one or two favourite groups might be useful.
> The sort of newsgroups I use regularly have a total number of posts
>over all years around 20,000 - 100,000 posts. Assuming an average of
>10K per post (is this reasonable) The larger groups would take up a
>gigabyte or so. Put these on DVD and add some searching software and
>it would be a useful tool.
>
>It seems to me that if Google is the SOLE controller of all of this
>public domain information then it can only be a bad thing.
>

Quite a few people keep permanent archives of their favorite groups,
and some have been doing so for years. All you need to do is get any
good newsreader (such as Agent) and set the Purge times for messages
with bodies to "Never". Job done.

--
Don Aitken

Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".

Van Jacques

unread,
Dec 3, 2004, 1:51:44 PM12/3/04
to
gsw...@mailcity.com (gswork) wrote in message news:<81f33a98.0412...@posting.google.com>...

I would be surprised if they came to their senses. They are quite
determined to do many stupid things and are completely impervious
to reason and common sense.

I also am a Usenet user from before there was any WWW or graphics.

Amen to most of the above. I post to sci.math and sci.physics.research
mostly which have developed ASCII (TeX-like) notation which google can't
write programs for, so by trying to add color, fonts, clickable
quotes, etc., they just make an absurd scrobled mess of it all.
I have written and begged and reasoned with them, all to no avail.
I have had to leave google and use another server and a newsreader,
which is fine for usenet, but its not as convenient.

Those who post to those groups from google using groups 2 will know
what I'm talking about, and now that the old ASCII version is being phased
out for this nonsense.

Soon we will have graphic smilies instead of <g> and :-).

google could be a valuable resource if they wouldn't insist on being
so stupid.

Van

Henrietta K Thomas

unread,
Dec 4, 2004, 4:49:53 AM12/4/04
to
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 02:11:44 -0500, Michael Shell
<ne...@michaelshell.org> wrote:

<snip complaint with which I heartily agree>

>You see, if Google ever "went nuts" with regard
>to access to their web search engine, I could
>still survive - AltaVista, Lycos, Yahoo!,
>etc. are quite usable as alternatives to Google's
>web search. But, what of Usenet searches? In
>that regard, Google seems to have everyone
>by the balls. And I'm afraid they know it.

You may be right on that.

>Are there any existing viable alternatives to
>Google Groups' Usenet archive search engine -
>even ones available on a paid basis?

Only one that I know of. usenet-replayer.com.
I haven't completely explored it, but it's one
place to start.

Henrietta K. Thomas
Chicago, Illinois
h...@xnet.com
__
Learn about the us.* hierarchy.
Visit our website @ www.usenetnews.us

Mark Goodge

unread,
Dec 4, 2004, 5:33:14 AM12/4/04
to
On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 03:49:53 -0600, Henrietta K Thomas put finger to
keyboard and typed:

>On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 02:11:44 -0500, Michael Shell
><ne...@michaelshell.org> wrote:
>
>>Are there any existing viable alternatives to
>>Google Groups' Usenet archive search engine -
>>even ones available on a paid basis?
>
>Only one that I know of. usenet-replayer.com.
>I haven't completely explored it, but it's one
>place to start.

mailgate.org is pretty good for simple browsing and searching, but it
doesn't have all the features of Google groups.

Mark
--
--> http://photos.markshouse.net - see my world! <--
"I've got too much life running through my veins going to waste"

John M Price PhD

unread,
Dec 4, 2004, 8:30:18 AM12/4/04
to
In news.groups article <8ccca585.04120...@posting.google.com> mike <mike_u...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

: It seems to me that if Google is the SOLE controller of all of this


: public domain information then it can only be a bad thing.

It is not public doamin. It is publicly accessible.


(c) 2004. Copyright, John M. Price, PhD. All Rights Reserved.
Contents may not be republished in any form or medium without prior
written consent of the author with the express and only exception of
followup postings limited to and within usenet.
--
John M. Price, PhD jmp...@calweb.com
Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or FTP!
Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion.
Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683

Nothing illustrates the social kinship of America and the late, great
Roman Empire better than the all-you-can-eat buffet. The Romans called
their buffet an orgy and threw in sex and a vomit trough. Hopefully we too
will reach this pinnacle someday.
- Greg Beets & Buzz Moran 'Hey! Hey! Buffet!'

John M Price PhD

unread,
Dec 4, 2004, 8:28:06 AM12/4/04
to
In news.groups article <Xns95B3A9C5...@216.168.3.44> who me <o...@ooo.com> wrote:
: utef...@gmail.com wrote in news:1101997375.621212.208890
: @c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

True. Spammers aren't going to bother with web crawls for usenet stuff
when they can just grep their local servers. They do the web crawls for
those not on usenet.


(c) 2004. Copyright, John M. Price, PhD. All Rights Reserved.
Contents may not be republished in any form or medium without prior
written consent of the author with the express and only exception of
followup postings limited to and within usenet.
--
John M. Price, PhD jmp...@calweb.com
Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or FTP!
Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion.
Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683

Faith is the first step to stop looking for the truth.
- Wade Smith on SKEPTIC, 8Jul99

psyshrike

unread,
Dec 4, 2004, 1:24:58 PM12/4/04
to
mike_u...@yahoo.co.uk (mike) wrote in message news:<8ccca585.04120...@posting.google.com>...

> > For a long time I've used Deja News (which later became Google Groups)
> > to search the Usenet archives and I've never felt the need to consider
> > an alternative ... until today.
>
> <SNIP>
>
> Is it feasable to obtain local archives of some newsgroups. In my own
> research I often use the same groups over and over. Having my own -
> searchable - local archive might be useful.
>
> Is such a thing
> a) possible?

Yes, in fact I've seen it done before. Basically all you need is a
usenet client application that will store your dowloaded messages as a
single file and an encoding algorythm to covert it all to html.

I think you also get cool points for doing this. Including a single
groups entire spool linked from your web page would probably get your
web site some search relevance. Not sure about that thought.

> b) legal?

Absolutely. Nobody owns usenet. The very design of it is cooperative
and distributed. Which is probably why it will ultimately die as
direct user interfacing format. Its much more redundant in traffic
loading than is a web based group systems. It can also be a major PITA
from an administrative standpoint.

>
> How much storage space might one need for such an undertaking.

One high traffic text only group might take a Gig or so, and thats
probably generous. Compressed even less. Not that much data by modern
standards.

The "groups.foo.com" domain practice is already fairly standardized.
It might be appropriate to just migrate the whole bloody thing by
making the groups a DNS naming convention. Just reverse the
heirarchies.

For instance:

news://alt.foo.bar

would become:

http://bar.foo.alt.groups.google.com.

Or just have a .news toplevel so it would be:

http://bar.foo.alt.google.news.

I'm sure smarter folks than me have thought about this. It would
probably get a lot of push back initially. People want usenet to be
"free", but generally don't take into account the guy running the
local server. (The one your connecting to right now)

It's his box after all, and he can do whatever he wants to his box.
The fact that there isn't a lot of moderation (Pun intended) on usenet
is more of a pragmatic issue than an idealistic one. Opinions are just
not important enough to spend all day filtering.

Sufficed to say that wouldn't change if the whole thing was migrated
to the web and "usenet" as a systems architecture ceased to exist.

> Obviously mirroring all of usenet is impossible for anyone - but maybe
> keeping local archives of one or two favourite groups might be useful.
> The sort of newsgroups I use regularly have a total number of posts
> over all years around 20,000 - 100,000 posts. Assuming an average of
> 10K per post (is this reasonable) The larger groups would take up a
> gigabyte or so. Put these on DVD and add some searching software and
> it would be a useful tool.
>
> It seems to me that if Google is the SOLE controller of all of this
> public domain information then it can only be a bad thing.
>
> Any thoughts?
> Mike

Google isn't the sole controller. Like I said the whole system is
distributed. So google may be the only one running a free searchable
index, and the only one storing messages indefinately. But the data as
it is posted is aviable and transported across many many hosts. Or at
least that is how it used to be. (Haven't messed with NNTP in many
years.)

The issue is the search engine. Storing the data is easy. Storing in a
way that is searchable is whole other potatoe. Or is that patahtoe...

-FWIW
-Matt

yank_e...@yahoo.com

unread,
Dec 6, 2004, 4:36:22 PM12/6/04
to
Glad to see I'm not the only one disgusted with the new and "improved"
Google Groups. The usefulness of Google Groups has been severely
impaired by their latest changes. Most noteably, we have lost the
ability to browse through a directory of groups (you must know what you
are looking for) and intuitive hyperlinks have given way to plain html
which further impairs navigation. The graphics are annoying, but I
resent most the physical changes that have made it less usable, such as
the threads now being shown "flat" without the useful hierachical
structure of the original messages. I sent an email to Google Groups
support when they first implemented the changes. I suggest everyone
who is disatisfied do the same.

http://groups-beta.google.com/support/bin/request.py

Your point about the addresses is valid. Most of us know to use an
anonymous free account if we are concerned about spam, and then let the
filters handle the rest. We are already separated by a level of
anonymity through the use of aliases. I would much rather see IP
masking (click on "show original" and it displays all of the original
headers). The email might be of use to spammers, but the IP can be far
more damaging in the wrong hands. The IP can be used to gain
information about the sender, as well as for hacking. We have all no
doubt seen people being stalked at one time or another online. There
are always proxies, but it would be nice if google simply masked the
last octet.

daniele....@gmail.com

unread,
Dec 6, 2004, 6:59:46 PM12/6/04
to
I think Google Groups are pretty good

daniele....@gmail.com

unread,
Dec 6, 2004, 7:01:29 PM12/6/04
to
prova

daniele....@gmail.com

unread,
Dec 6, 2004, 7:01:50 PM12/6/04
to
prova

salw...@yahoo.com

unread,
Dec 6, 2004, 9:28:15 PM12/6/04
to

Michael Shell wrote:
> Greetings fellow Usenetters,
>
>
> For a long time I've used Deja News (which later became Google
Groups)
> to search the Usenet archives and I've never felt the need to
consider
> an alternative ... until today.
>
> Have you folks tried the new Google Groups recently? Lotsa new flashy
> graphics, colors, stupid star icons (a la Ebay), larger fonts and
> create-your-own-braindead-groups (a la Yahoo! groups). It seems that
as
> internet companies evolve, they inevitably dumb things down to the
> lowest denominator. A similar thing seems to have happened with the
> latest My Yahoo! format.

It is dreadful. Horrible. I cant believe they would do this to the old
google groups.


It may be time to sell google stock. I learnt so much in the Newsgroups
by reading old posts of people I deemed informed. You cant do that
anymore.

John

unread,
Dec 7, 2004, 4:00:53 PM12/7/04
to
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 02:11:44 -0500, Michael Shell
<ne...@michaelshell.org> wrote "I hate the new Google Groups":

>For a long time I've used Deja News (which later became Google Groups)
>to search the Usenet archives and I've never felt the need to consider
>an alternative ... until today.

I couldn't agree more with the opinions I am reading here about the
new Google Groups. I wrote an e-mail to Google Groups this morning
from the "contact us" section of their website. While the e-mail
address I sent my opinion to is for support and not feedback, I hope
they will forward my e-mail to the appropriate department. Here is
what I wrote:

"I have been using Google Groups since back in the Dejanews
days, roughly 8 years. I wanted to let you know how horrible I find
the new design of Google Groups. It is the most un-user friendly
design I have ever seen. Navigating through usenet searches is
extremely awkward now. I normally adapt to changes quickly, but I do
not feel I can do so with your new design. I did a search on Google
Groups to see other reactions to the new design and I found my opinion
is shared by other people. I hope your company will realize how good
the original design was. Although I am in the United States, I was
pleased to find I can still use the design I am used to in the UK
version of Google Groups. I hope you will at least leave the UK
version alone."

ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk

unread,
Dec 8, 2004, 6:47:48 PM12/8/04
to
Yep

Google groups has taken a working solution and instead of fixing what
was wrong managed to take away all the things that made it work in the
first place!

It took me a while to find the 'view by title' bar.

Quite simply it's too 'gnarly' - they've tried to do too much and
failed to make the new site function as quickly as the old site.

I create user interfaces for a living (web interfaces at that) and it
appears who ever designed this interface was under pressure from
engineers - lots of added stuff that no body wants!

Why is there two ways to reply and why do they hide quoted text! I know
bigger text is more accessible but it's also far less usable - which in
turn is less accessable. And what's with all the extra space - as
someone with mild dyslexica it really makes it hard to read anything.

Google - you've messed up and I'm going to get help to see if I can fix
you.

Stew Dean

Ryan

unread,
Dec 9, 2004, 1:35:50 PM12/9/04
to

I agree 100%. I HATE the new look of Google Groups! I used to use
Google Groups every day and this change is a huge step backward. Hard
to read, hard to use, etc.

But, that said, I don't mind having my e-mail address hidden. I have
had a large number of wackos e-mail me directly instead of replying to
my post the correct way and I'd love to put an end to that!

Barn...@hotmail.com

unread,
Dec 12, 2004, 6:03:55 AM12/12/04
to
Ditto

New look is ugly, difficult to use etc., a huge step backwards.
I hope Google do a rethink

Dave

Daniel Joseph Min

unread,
Dec 15, 2004, 11:50:00 AM12/15/04
to
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Blog! Blog! Blog!
Post! Post! Post!
Expand! Expand! Expand!

MAKE SURE TO email everyone you know, and even those you
don't know. Remind them that the bitterly defeated left-
wing extremist former Vice-President *Al Gore* is senior
advisor to Google! Google's co-founders Larry Page and
Sergey Brin are radically left-wing liberal extremists!

And remind everyone that the TIMING of Google's so-called
"beta" is nothing short of draconian censorship tantamount
to criminal treason against the global usenet community!
*One month* after they were trounced on November 2, 2004,
and the "beta" kicks in. Ask yourself Why? *WHY* is Google
and the liberals afraid of users searching the archives?
It's because the liberals FEAR being excommunicated from
what little remains of the moderate Democratic party.
The rabidly-insane liberals HIGHJACKED the party and LOST
them the election! The archives testify to this indeniable
FACT. Therefore, the liberals want to hide it from the world.

So DO your homework! If you want Google Groups back on-line
(they're doubtless working overtime to disable the foreign
domain work-around), FLOOD the internet with the irrefutable
FACTS about Google and who's behind them. If the likes of
*Al Gore* and *George Soros* aren't enough to convince you,
then who is? Usama Bin Laden? John Kerry? Jacques Chirac?
Kofi Annan? The U.N.?

Merry Christmas!
Daniel Joseph Min
http://www.google.co.uk./groups?selm=XJBDEJF13826...@anonymous.poster
http://www.geocities.com/daniel_joseph_min
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x2B1CCFE7

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBQcBpRpljD7YrHM/nEQLwaACg0PZE4b4v6o3xVFi2az20URzg3P0An13O
50GRTu/8zPADkRxrcDKXuGZP
=Ij3I
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On 15 Dec 2004, literatae...@yahoo.com wrote:
>I have sent complaints via the support button at Google Groups.
>
>Do you have any other suggestions about where to send complaints and
>what the most effective form of complaints (letters, petitions, emails)
>would be most effective?
>
>I received an automated reply to my online complaint and doubt it will
>get through to any real person with the authority to do something.
>
>Suggestions welcome!
>
>Mairead

David Bostwick

unread,
Dec 15, 2004, 2:05:27 PM12/15/04
to
In article <1103118853....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, literatae...@yahoo.com wrote:
>I have sent complaints via the support button at Google Groups.
>
>Do you have any other suggestions about where to send complaints and
>what the most effective form of complaints (letters, petitions, emails)
>would be most effective?
>

ANYWHERE BUT HERE!

literatae...@yahoo.com

unread,
Dec 15, 2004, 8:54:13 AM12/15/04
to
I have sent complaints via the support button at Google Groups.

Do you have any other suggestions about where to send complaints and
what the most effective form of complaints (letters, petitions, emails)
would be most effective?

I received an automated reply to my online complaint and doubt it will


get through to any real person with the authority to do something.

Suggestions welcome!

Mairead

Daniel Joseph Min

unread,
Dec 15, 2004, 3:37:46 PM12/15/04
to
In article <1S6HYVA23833...@anonymous.poster>

Daniel Joseph Min <Real...@Colorado.USA> wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> Blog! Blog! Blog!
> Post! Post! Post!
> Expand! Expand! Expand!
>
>


FOAD!

Daniel Joseph Min

unread,
Dec 15, 2004, 11:00:40 PM12/15/04
to
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Interesting how the words "liberal" and "forgery" are so
commonly used in the SAME sentence! Lies, disinformation,
forgery, slander, obfuscation, diversion, innuendo, etc.,
it seems that the *LOSER* liberals will NEVER learn that
*HONESTY* is the best policy--no wonder they HATE the Boy
Scouts & Girl Scouts so much! Like that forged RATHERGATE
memo slandering Bush 43's Texas Air National Guard service.

Like Google's across-the-board censorship of the archives,
basically, *EVERYTHING* that the liberals say is a *LIE*,
and *EVERYTHING* they do is foolish and criminally-insane!

Now Google wants to put ONLY liberal-approved library books
on-line--the bulk of which are Godless lies frae end-to-end!
And their public announcement to do this "just so happens"
to coincide with their draconian censorship of the archives.
Truly, the people in charge of Google are liberal TERRORISTS!

Don't you liberals realize that our Patriot Act III shall
legally equate you treasonous vermin with Enemy Combatants,
especially once Al-Qaeda follows through with their threats
to attack us with WMDs? Mark my word. YOUR days are numbered...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBQcEErJljD7YrHM/nEQJXIgCeJXncBZDUhxdVERB3rDWkyrYKccoAoPYF
W5P4yqt20d04G5Mhtu3w4yge
=qAdp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

><snipped yet another lame liberal forgery>


Neal

unread,
Dec 15, 2004, 11:11:27 PM12/15/04
to
On 16 Dec 2004 04:00:40 -0000, Daniel Joseph Min <Real...@Colorado.USA>
wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

I don't care to read that.

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> iQA/AwUBQcEErJljD7YrHM/nEQJXIgCeJXncBZDUhxdVERB3rDWkyrYKccoAoPYF
> W5P4yqt20d04G5Mhtu3w4yge
> =qAdp
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Nor do I care to read that.

Daniel Joseph Min

unread,
Dec 16, 2004, 12:55:35 AM12/16/04
to
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

But *of course* you permanently-defeated liberals don't
want to read about your national and global DESTRUCTION!
And that's what makes it so EASY for us *Republicans* to
destroy you. You just pretend that we don't have the upper
hand, and you continually delude yourselves that we will
somehow just magically "go away". Forsooth, we're STILL
here, and we're hell-bent on PLANTING you in the ground!

You really don't see it coming because you simply refuse
to look at your own *DEATH* right in the face. This makes
finishing you liberals off little more than a Turkey Shoot
for us gloatingly-victorious moderate-to-conservatives on
BOTH sides of the political aisle. We've got the *POWER*,
whereas you have NONE whatsoever. You're at *OUR* mercy...
and trust me, mine enemies, you'll find *NONE* whatsoever!

You've been so busy *HATING* God and *HATING* Jesus Christ
and *HATING* your neighbor as you *HATE* yourself--against
God's commandments delivered through Moses, and Jesus, and
through all the prophets of old,--you have literally HATED
your lamentable souls into an early GRAVE! So we're simply
doing you a FAVOR by putting you out of your misery. See?

But of course you don't. You won't see a thing until your
soul regathers itself in the profound pit of *dishonesty*,
the burning lake of endless torment after we've KILLED you.

"Neal" wrote:
>I don't care to read that.

>Nor do I care to read that.

"'God is dead'-Nietzsche
'Nietzsche is dead'-God"
-Tombs Restaurant in D.C.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBQcEgNJljD7YrHM/nEQKTQgCg8eVcazgLX8LjrO/5K2Yf2smeXTUAoLQa
AvqtPZNJp+apoCVq29x9FS3H
=vdqL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


NetDet

unread,
Dec 16, 2004, 2:04:57 AM12/16/04