OT for cooking, but OT for newsgroups/usenet

[somebody]

You ever notice OT could mean "off topic" or "on topic"?

Anyway, my question is relevant to what the old-timers call "usenet".
My isp stopped carrying newsgroups few years ago and I had to switch
to Google Groups. Not a fan, but it's the only thing I can use unless
I pay money and since I'm kinda poor headed towards even poorer I'd
rather not pay as long as free is available.

Do people here use newsgroup readers? Are there any free newsgroup
servers left? All I've ever found is ones I have to pay for. I'm
sure they are better than Google Groups and actually have features
like a "killfile" etc but GG is good enough. Just wondered if I was
missing something and there are any free news group servers. Used to
use Forte' agent but that was many posts ago.

[George]

Sounds like you missed the numerous discussions that came up when ISPs
turned off servers to "save the children". I started using this one when
comcast turned off Usenet access:

http://www.eternal-september.org/

[S Viemeister]

On 6/16/2012 9:40 PM, somebody wrote:

The one I use - news.individual.net - is close to free. It's only 10
Euros (about $12.50) per _year_. They're very good at filtering out cr*p.
I use Thunderbird (free) to read - the filters are very easy to set up.

[somebody]

By George, I think it's working! I see newsgroup names
downloading... And now Vista Mail is loading messages. Hey, this is
great. Much better than Google Groups!

Thank you very much!!!

[somebody]

On Jun 16, 10:09 pm, MotoFox <u...@footron.bitnet> wrote:
> And it came to pass that George delivered the following message unto the
> people, saying~

>
> > Sounds like you missed the numerous discussions that came up when ISPs
> > turned off servers to "save the children". I started using this one when
> > comcast turned off Usenet access:
>
> >http://www.eternal-september.org/
>

> http://albasani.net/index.html.enis decent, too.
>
> Newsreader:http://pan.rebelbase.com/download/releases/0.14.2/REDHAT_9/pan-0.14.2...http://pan.rebelbase.com/download/releases/0.14.2/REDHAT_9/gnet/REDHA...
> (you need gnet to run Pan)
>
> If you need a package that runs on Debian, you can convert these RPMs to
> .deb format with Alien. Yes, there is a Window$ version, but surely you're
> not actually using Window$ to access the network, now are you? ;o)
>
> Of course, most times you can also log in directly to the news server
> through xterm and telnet (for example--
> $ telnet reader.albasani.net 119 <enter>
> auth user readonly <enter>
> auth pass readonly <enter>) which is how a really hard-core Usenetter
> would do it.
>
> Whatever you do, get away from Groups as quickly as you can. Run far, run
> fast!

Thanks. I actually have a LCP but it was like 10 years ago. And
well, you don't want to know... but at least I'm off Google Groups!

[Thank you benevolent Overlords for Google Groups, but I no longer
need them.]

[Somebody]

"George" <geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:jrjcvn$6vv$1...@dont-email.me...

I see messages in a hierarchy under a topic! Like I used years ago. Now, I
can tell who is responding to who. Unlike Google Groups where I had to wade
through old messages to see if there were new messages, and it wasn't
obvious who was responding to who... And I can kill file spam. And glance
through a thread and see where it started and ends. This is great!

Thank you!

[gregz]

So am I. I used free service through a university for many years. It was
only 1 1/2 years ago they terminated usenet service. The students were not
interested in it. I saw that happen 10 years ago.

Greg

[Julie Bove]

"George" <geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:jrjcvn$6vv$1...@dont-email.me...

Yep.

[Gary]

Somebody wrote:
>
> "George" <geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> >

> > http://www.eternal-september.org/
>
> I see messages in a hierarchy under a topic! Like I used years ago. Now, I
> can tell who is responding to who. Unlike Google Groups where I had to wade
> through old messages to see if there were new messages, and it wasn't
> obvious who was responding to who... And I can kill file spam. And glance
> through a thread and see where it started and ends. This is great!
>
> Thank you!

Nice to have it back, isn't it? :)
George hooked you up with that one.
If you ever need a backup this is free too:
http://www.aioe.org

Gary

[Brooklyn1]

gregz wrote:
>
>I used free service through a university for many years.

It wasn't free, you're a thief, you stole it. Not only did you steal
the service but you spent all day perusing the net instead of
working... I bet you know every raunchy porn site out there.

[sf]

On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 19:14:56 -0700 (PDT), somebody
<tom.un...@gmail.com> wrote:

> By George, I think it's working! I see newsgroup names
> downloading... And now Vista Mail is loading messages. Hey, this is
> great. Much better than Google Groups!
>
> Thank you very much!!!

Heh! Almost *anything* is better than GG. If you want binaries, like
garden groups with individual images, and don't mind paying a couple
of bucks for newsgroup access (monthly or a block account), you will
have even more choices.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

[Somebody]

"sf" <s...@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:f1uqt7hl5srabtfn2...@4ax.com...

I don't think I need binaries-- I don't need any food-related porn.... Text
and free is fine.

[Somebody]

"Brooklyn1" <Gravesend1> wrote in message
news:v7lrt7l4u0frqnve8...@4ax.com...

There is porn on the internet??

[jmcquown]

"S Viemeister" <firs...@lastname.oc.ku> wrote in message
news:a44sq6...@mid.individual.net...

I use news.individual.net (NIN), too. Great service! IIRC it is maintained
by students at a university in Germany.

Jill

[Gary]

If I could get back some of my favorite nudie binary groups, I would gladly
pay. ;o

Gary

[Doug Freyburger]

somebody wrote:
>
> [Thank you benevolent Overlords for Google Groups, but I no longer
> need them.]

I keep my google account as a backup. When I'm on travel I nevre know
if the network du jour might block NNTP protocol.

[dsi1]

OTOH, GG is better than nothing. For tablet and mobile device users,
it'll probably be the preferred option.

[Ed Pawlowski]

On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 08:22:16 -1000, dsi1
<ds...@eternal-september.invalid> wrote:


>>
>
>OTOH, GG is better than nothing. For tablet and mobile device users,
>it'll probably be the preferred option.

If that is true, I'll never own a tablet. GG is horrid and not worth
the pixels it is printed on.

[dsi1]

"I'll never own a tablet." Famous last words. Usenet ain't the world, ya
know.

[jmcquown]

"dsi1" <ds...@eternal-september.invalid> wrote in message
news:jrl9kn$pea$2...@dont-email.me...

Usenet ain't the world? And yet you're here ;) I'll never own a tablet
because I don't choose to walk around carrying a computer. I'd also rather
read actual books so forget about trying to sell me a Kindle.

GG is around because, despite other companies turning off the usenet switch,
it's apparently still alive and well. That doesn't mean GG is good at it.
They just did it because they had to. We aren't going away. Oh no, us
techno-dinosaurs who remember way back... :)

Jill

[Somebody]

"jmcquown" <j_mc...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:a48bh0...@mid.individual.net...

I like when people call it "Usenet". Reminds me how my mom (who was born in
the 20s) used to write "to-day" with a hyphen. Always with a hyphen.
Someone must have told her when growing up she had to use a hyphen. I don't
think she ever stopped writing it that way.

[dsi1]

On 6/17/2012 11:43 PM, jmcquown wrote:
>
> "dsi1" <ds...@eternal-september.invalid> wrote in message
> news:jrl9kn$pea$2...@dont-email.me...
>> On 6/17/2012 8:56 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 08:22:16 -1000, dsi1
>>> <ds...@eternal-september.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> OTOH, GG is better than nothing. For tablet and mobile device users,
>>>> it'll probably be the preferred option.
>>>
>>> If that is true, I'll never own a tablet. GG is horrid and not worth
>>> the pixels it is printed on.
>>>
>>
>> "I'll never own a tablet." Famous last words. Usenet ain't the world,
>> ya know.
>>
>
> Usenet ain't the world? And yet you're here ;) I'll never own a tablet
> because I don't choose to walk around carrying a computer. I'd also
> rather read actual books so forget about trying to sell me a Kindle.

If you're implying that Usenet is the world, because I'm here, you might
want to rethink your logic. My guess is that one day you'll eat your
words. I won't have to sell you a thing.

>
> GG is around because, despite other companies turning off the usenet
> switch, it's apparently still alive and well. That doesn't mean GG is
> good at it. They just did it because they had to. We aren't going
> away. Oh no, us techno-dinosaurs who remember way back... :)

I've never said that the GG interface is perfect. I've never said that
the interface is very good either. I have said that the mobile version
of the new GG has some big problems. OTOH, it's true that for most
tablet users, it's presently the interface we're stuck with.

Computing is changing from the way it's been since the 90s. We're all
going to have to change with it whether we like it or not. It's not
necessary that you believe me. Believing that you won't change seems as
likely to happen as refusing to grow up. As it goes, most of the
dinosaurs were wiped out by a single event. You techno-dinosaurs are
only around as long as the servers remain active. This seems like a slim
thread to hang your world on.

>
> Jill

[Nunya Bidnits]

The world ain't Usenet, ya know?

[Nunya Bidnits]

dsi1 <ds...@eternal-september.invalid> wrote:
As it goes, most of the
> dinosaurs were wiped out by a single event. You techno-dinosaurs are
> only around as long as the servers remain active. This seems like a
> slim thread to hang your world on.

Seriously? You think because you stumble around GG on a tablet that you're
techno-savvy and more technically adept than most of the folks who post
here?

Really?

[Nunya Bidnits]

The original one-handed typing pervert is calling out somebody for internet
porn?

Here's a lesson, yutz. Just because you spend almost all your waking hours
wanking the net doesn't mean the rest of the world does the same. If we were
all like you, the human race would be extinct due to an epidemic of
compulsive masturbation.

MartyB

[sf]

On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 02:19:35 -1000, dsi1
<ds...@eternal-september.invalid> wrote:

> I've never said that the GG interface is perfect. I've never said that
> the interface is very good either. I have said that the mobile version
> of the new GG has some big problems. OTOH, it's true that for most
> tablet users, it's presently the interface we're stuck with.

One of the main reasons why I prefer a netbook to a tablet is because
there's no way to access "real" usenet through smaller products. I
want to read it through a real news reader, no GG.

[dsi1]

That's my opinion - let me know if I say anything untrue. Otherwise,
come up with some ideas of your own. Just leave me out of it.

[dsi1]

On 6/18/2012 8:54 AM, Sqwertz wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 08:15:53 -1000, dsi1 wrote:
>
>> On 6/18/2012 4:47 AM, Nunya Bidnits wrote:
>>> dsi1<ds...@eternal-september.invalid> wrote:
>>> As it goes, most of the
>>>> dinosaurs were wiped out by a single event. You techno-dinosaurs are
>>>> only around as long as the servers remain active. This seems like a
>>>> slim thread to hang your world on.
>>>
>>> Seriously? You think because you stumble around GG on a tablet that you're
>>> techno-savvy and more technically adept than most of the folks who post
>>> here?
>>

>> That's my opinion - let me know if I say anything untrue. Otherwise,
>> come up with some ideas of your own. Just leave me out of it.
>

> You seem to be under the mistaken impression that if our servers
> disappear that Google Groups will still somehow survive to carry the
> torch. It won't. So yes, that seriously defective assumptions on
> your part.
>
> -sw

My assumption is that sooner or later, Google will no longer convert and
relay messages to the Usenet servers. Some groups, like this one, will
be minimally affected. Other Usenet newsgroups, which have a high
percentage of GG posters, will probably just fade away.

This group has a high percentage of posts that go through NNTP servers
but that may be because that the core of repeat posters use newsreaders.
It's pretty active here but you see the same posters over and over.
There's not much fresh blood around.

Google has been saying that the old GG will be going away soon for 2
years. My assumption is that what they really mean is that they'll
divorce themselves from Usenet. My guess is that when that happens, a
lot of NNTP servers will call it quits. That's just my opinion. Please
come up with an opinion of your own - just leave me out of it.

[dsi1]

On 6/18/2012 9:08 AM, Sqwertz wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 02:19:35 -1000, dsi1 wrote:
>
>> I've never said that the GG interface is perfect. I've never said that
>> the interface is very good either. I have said that the mobile version
>> of the new GG has some big problems. OTOH, it's true that for most
>> tablet users, it's presently the interface we're stuck with.
>

> What baffles me is why anybody would want to use Usenet when they are
> out and about. Usenet is for when you don't have anything better to
> do. Last thing I want to do is pay $4 for a coffee and sit at
> Starbucks reading Usenet.

I have to agree with you about Usenet. Who needs Usenet on the go? Not
me. Usenet could disappear as I write this and hardly anybody would
notice. OTOH, portability is a vital feature of web-based email. Who
gives a shit if Usenet is portable? I use GG when I'm using a tablet at
home. Thanks for stating the obvious.

>
> But I'd feel so techno-saavy, so I guess that makes t worth it.
> Everybody else there would envy me wondering what I was doing with my
> tablet and wondering how important I must be.

>
>> Computing is changing from the way it's been since the 90s. We're all
>> going to have to change with it whether we like it or not. It's not
>> necessary that you believe me. Believing that you won't change seems as
>> likely to happen as refusing to grow up. As it goes, most of the
>> dinosaurs were wiped out by a single event. You techno-dinosaurs are
>> only around as long as the servers remain active. This seems like a slim
>> thread to hang your world on.
>

> Total diarrhea of the mouth. You really don't have a clue about
> actual technology - all you can do spout out half-assed speculations
> with a few mis-understood buzzwords to make you sound significant.

It's my opinion. If you don't like it, try coming up with an opinion of
your own. All I hear from you is how great old newsreaders are and how
you ain't gonna change. Big deal.

Oh yeah, I'm just going to have to ignore your ass again if you make
another personal remark. Have a nice day! :-)

>
> -sw

[Doug Freyburger]

dsi1 wrote:
>
> You techno-dinosaurs are
> only around as long as the servers remain active. This seems like a slim
> thread to hang your world on.

It's the dinosaursa that are keeping Usenet going these days. More and
more hobbiests run NNTP servers and give away access. In a sense it's
heading towards how it was in the 1980s with small sites supplying the
access.

[dsi1]

I think that's fine. I don't see anything wrong with the users stepping
up to the plate to preserve their own thing. I used to post on old
bulletin board systems and I thought that was great time. Too bad the
old bulletin boards got overshadowed by Usenet. OTOH, there are a lot of
great web-based forums out there.

[Nunya Bidnits]

You put yourself in it when you posted. If you don't want responses, don't
post. Don't you see anything odd about making inexplicably condescending
remarks towards people in the group and then demanding to be left out of it?

And in case you haven't noticed, pretty much everything you do,
electronically speaking, is dependent on servers. So that makes your comment

"You techno-dinosaurs are only around as long as the servers remain active"

sound pretty ignorant, does it not?

Don't respond. I want to be left out of it.

[Nunya Bidnits]

Again with the dispensing of BS followed by a request for no response? How
does one separate a response to your post from you?

[Nunya Bidnits]

And if you want to talk about dinousaurs, the average web-based forum runs
on horrible ancient crap that makes getting around in GG look streamlined.

MartyB

[dsi1]

On 6/18/2012 12:21 PM, Nunya Bidnits wrote:
>
> Again with the dispensing of BS followed by a request for no response? How
> does one separate a response to your post from you?
>
>

It's possible to post something without making it all about a person.
I'm interested in ideas and concepts, not people. I'm not interested in
talking about other people and I'm certainly not interested in talking
about what you think about me personally. Looks like you're problem is
that you take things personally. Tough titties. Here's the deal: I ain't
talking about you.

[George M. Middius]

sqwishy's rag is on fire again.

> > Oh yeah, I'm just going to have to ignore your ass again if you make
> > another personal remark. Have a nice day! :-)
>

> That's fine (asshole!). I will enjoy pointing out your idiocy and
> making a fool out of you whether you choose to respond or not.

I think you've got the count down to 3 now, sqwish. (That's 3 regular
posters with whom you're not at war.) Are you expecting to reach 0
within days, weeks, or months?

[George M. Middius]

dsi1 wrote:

> I'm interested in ideas and concepts, not people. I'm not interested in
> talking about other people and I'm certainly not interested in talking
> about what you think about me personally.

How tall are you? I can't evaluate your ideas without some idea of
your personal attributes.

[Nunya Bidnits]

dsi1 <dsi...@hawaiiantel.net> wrote:
> On 6/18/2012 12:21 PM, Nunya Bidnits wrote:
>>
>> Again with the dispensing of BS followed by a request for no
>> response? How does one separate a response to your post from you?
>>
>>
>
> It's possible to post something without making it all about a person.
> I'm interested in ideas and concepts, not people.

You're the one who referred to a section of those who use this group as
techno-dinosaurs. Explain how that is not about people.

> I'm not interested
> in talking about other people

But you did it anyway.

> and I'm certainly not interested in
> talking about what you think about me personally.

But that's what you're going to get when you refer to people that way. This
is Usenet, remember? Get over it.

MartyB

[dsi1]

He he. What a tough life it must be for the guy that takes everything
personally. BTW, I'm a short guy. Some folks think I'm a midget but I
prefer the term "gnome" myself.

[notbob]

On 2012-06-18, dsi1 <dsi...@hawaiiantel.net> wrote:

> that you take things personally. Tough titties. Here's the deal: I ain't
> talking about you.

You fooled me.

nb


--
vi --the heart of evil!
Support labeling GMOs
<http://www.labelgmos.org/>

[dsi1]

On 6/18/2012 2:20 PM, notbob wrote:
> On 2012-06-18, dsi1<dsi...@hawaiiantel.net> wrote:
>
>> that you take things personally. Tough titties. Here's the deal: I ain't
>> talking about you.
>
> You fooled me.
>
> nb
>
>

I am sorry about this. In my future posts, I will strive to try even
harder to make it obvious that it ain't about you. Thanks for the feedback.

BTW, this ain't about you either.

[Hell Toupee]

On 6/18/2012 7:19 AM, dsi1 wrote:
>
> I've never said that the GG interface is perfect. I've never said that
> the interface is very good either. I have said that the mobile version
> of the new GG has some big problems. OTOH, it's true that for most
> tablet users, it's presently the interface we're stuck with.

You're stuck with it only if you don't know how to find a proper
newsreader app for your tablet. There are several such apps for
Android and iOS. Hints: Groundhog, Usenet Reader, NewsTap.

GG isn't Usenet, Usenet isn't GG. Nobody has to use GG to access
Usenet if they'd prefer not to. Not even on a tablet.

[dsi1]

You're certainly right about that - nobody has to use GG to access
Usenet, even on a tablet. I just thought NewsTap sucked. I will try
Groundhog. Hopefully, it's less sucky.*














*It's just my opinion. Don't come whining to me if you think NewsTap is
the bee's knees!

[sf]

Oh, well <sigh>... I looked all of them up and I thought News Tap had
the most potential - the other two really sucked (on paper). I *want*
threading and the ability to mark unread messages "read".

[Krypsis]

On 19/06/2012 4:57 AM, Sqwertz wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 10:45:33 -0400, Gary wrote:
>
>> If I could get back some of my favorite nudie binary groups, I would gladly
>> pay. ;o
>
> What nudie stuff is on newsgroups that isn't available VIA the Web?
> And with the Web is much more searchable and you get thumbnails so you
> can instantly see if you're interested without spending any more
> bandwidth/time on the site.
>
> -sw
>
Nothing at all! The relevant police departments are watching both.

--

Krypsis

[Krypsis]

On 18/06/2012 7:43 PM, jmcquown wrote:
>
> "dsi1" <ds...@eternal-september.invalid> wrote in message
> news:jrl9kn$pea$2...@dont-email.me...
>> On 6/17/2012 8:56 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 08:22:16 -1000, dsi1
>>> <ds...@eternal-september.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> OTOH, GG is better than nothing. For tablet and mobile device users,
>>>> it'll probably be the preferred option.
>>>
>>> If that is true, I'll never own a tablet. GG is horrid and not worth
>>> the pixels it is printed on.
>>>
>>
>> "I'll never own a tablet." Famous last words. Usenet ain't the world,
>> ya know.
>>
>
> Usenet ain't the world? And yet you're here ;) I'll never own a tablet
> because I don't choose to walk around carrying a computer. I'd also

If you own a smartphone, you're effectively carrying around a miniature
computer.

> rather read actual books so forget about trying to sell me a Kindle.

Always keep my eReader in the glove compartment of my car, very handy.
>
> GG is around because, despite other companies turning off the usenet
> switch, it's apparently still alive and well. That doesn't mean GG is
> good at it. They just did it because they had to. We aren't going
> away. Oh no, us techno-dinosaurs who remember way back... :)
>
> Jill


--

Krypsis

[Krypsis]

On 19/06/2012 6:45 AM, Sqwertz wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 09:27:33 -1000, dsi1 wrote:
>
>> On 6/18/2012 8:54 AM, Sqwertz wrote:
>>> On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 08:15:53 -1000, dsi1 wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/18/2012 4:47 AM, Nunya Bidnits wrote:
>>>>> dsi1<ds...@eternal-september.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> As it goes, most of the
>>>>>> dinosaurs were wiped out by a single event. You techno-dinosaurs are
>>>>>> only around as long as the servers remain active. This seems like a
>>>>>> slim thread to hang your world on.
>>>>>
>>>>> Seriously? You think because you stumble around GG on a tablet that you're
>>>>> techno-savvy and more technically adept than most of the folks who post
>>>>> here?
>>>>
>>>> That's my opinion - let me know if I say anything untrue. Otherwise,
>>>> come up with some ideas of your own. Just leave me out of it.
>>>
>>> You seem to be under the mistaken impression that if our servers
>>> disappear that Google Groups will still somehow survive to carry the
>>> torch. It won't. So yes, that seriously defective assumptions on
>>> your part.
>>

>> My assumption is that sooner or later, Google will no longer convert and
>> relay messages to the Usenet servers.
>

> That was not what you implied at all.

>
>> This group has a high percentage of posts that go through NNTP servers
>> but that may be because that the core of repeat posters use newsreaders.
>

> ALL the posts made here, whether from GG or from *real* news servers
> go through dozens of NNTP servers. You don't have a clue any how of
> this works, so you're not exactly in the position to make guesses and
> assumptions.

>
>> Google has been saying that the old GG will be going away soon for 2
>> years. My assumption is that what they really mean is that they'll
>> divorce themselves from Usenet.
>

> You can't even understand that simple statement? They're referring to
> the old interface, numbskull. The New interface is even more
> ridiculous than the previous GUI.

>
>> My guess is that when that happens, a lot of NNTP servers will call it quits.
>

> Nobody running or using real news servers really gives a shit if
> Google Groups gives up and blows away. Usenetnet will still be here.
> Just like it was before Google came along. Many of us will even
> praise that day Google gives up groups. You have a seriously
> over-bloated admiration for Google that is making you look like a fool
> every time you mention them.
>
> If Google groups was so great, these servers would not even exist.

Google Groups still needs to use servers so they would exist regardless.
Just who will pay the cost of their upkeep remains the blighted question.
>
> -sw
>
Google Groups, for better or worse, brought the masses to Usenet. With
the decline in ISPs, such as mine recently, wishing to host newsgroups,
Google Groups may eventually be the only way to access newsgroups.

--

Krypsis

[dsi1]

On 6/19/2012 11:13 AM, MotoFox wrote:
> And it came to pass that dsi1 delivered the following message unto the
> people, saying~

>
>> I think that's fine. I don't see anything wrong with the users stepping up
>> to the plate to preserve their own thing. I used to post on old bulletin
>> board systems and I thought that was great time. Too bad the old bulletin
>> boards got overshadowed by Usenet. OTOH, there are a lot of great
>> web-based forums out there.
>

> Actually, I think the World Wide Web itself (ugh) kind of overshadowed
> bulletin boards. I seem to recall the $ecret $ervice and the early Clinton
> administration also had a bit to do with it as well. Some of the better
> BBSen "out there" did provide Usenet access, and I think there might be a
> few that still do.
>

One thing's for sure - the WWW pretty much changed the course of human
history and the ability to connect with the world through a computer has
affected every facet of our lives. It's scarey that this one thing could
have changed our lives so significantly in such a short time.

[notbob]

On 2012-06-19, dsi1 <dsi...@hawaiiantel.net> wrote:

> affected every facet of our lives. It's scarey that this one thing could
> have changed our lives so significantly in such a short time.

What's even scarier is how hard and how quickly World govts are trying
to reverse the tide and restrict the internet. Fortunately, the
cork is outta the bottle and they shall never really succeed. They'll
never catch up with ever quickening technology advances that will keep
it free.

[dsi1]

On 6/19/2012 12:22 PM, notbob wrote:
> On 2012-06-19, dsi1<dsi...@hawaiiantel.net> wrote:
>
>> affected every facet of our lives. It's scarey that this one thing could
>> have changed our lives so significantly in such a short time.
>
> What's even scarier is how hard and how quickly World govts are trying
> to reverse the tide and restrict the internet. Fortunately, the
> cork is outta the bottle and they shall never really succeed. They'll
> never catch up with ever quickening technology advances that will keep
> it free.
>
> nb
>

If the US Constitution was written today, the free access of information
on the web might be considered a God-given right.

[Somebody]

"sf" <s...@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:psh1u7dvph9hii01o...@4ax.com...

That is all I want (and maybe Killfile capability, but that's not necessary
if you can just mark messages.) Why GG doesn't have threading and let you
mark messages, I don't understand. It's just cumbersome to use as is.

[Somebody]

"MotoFox" <us...@footron.bitnet> wrote in message
news:jrqpqc$ta1$1...@motofox-rules.dont-email.me...
> And it came to pass that George M. Middius delivered the following message
> unto the people, saying~
>

>> I think you've got the count down to 3 now, sqwish. (That's 3 regular
>> posters with whom you're not at war.) Are you expecting to reach 0 within
>> days, weeks, or months?
>

> Actually it's more like 2--"Sqwishy" was gracious enough to put his sense
> of maturity on display to the entire world by publicly plonking me months
> ago. And yet I haven't returned the favour, since I'm old enough and have
> been around Usenet long enough to actually know better.
>
> Oh well, nobody's perfect.

but some people are less perfect than others.

[Krypsis]

On 20/06/2012 12:54 PM, Sqwertz wrote:

> On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 06:23:54 +1000, Krypsis wrote:
>
>> On 19/06/2012 4:57 AM, Sqwertz wrote:
>>> On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 10:45:33 -0400, Gary wrote:
>>>
>>>> If I could get back some of my favorite nudie binary groups, I would gladly
>>>> pay. ;o
>>>
>>> What nudie stuff is on newsgroups that isn't available VIA the Web?

>>> And with the Web it's much more searchable and you get thumbnails so you

>>> can instantly see if you're interested without spending any more
>>> bandwidth/time on the site.
>>>

>> Nothing at all! The relevant police departments are watching both.
>

> Nudity and porn is not illegal.
>
> -sw
>
Depends on just how far the "viewers" take it (age of subject material
in particular) and that is what the law enforcement agencies are monitoring.

--

Krypsis

[Krypsis]

On 20/06/2012 6:59 AM, MotoFox wrote:
> And it came to pass that Krypsis delivered the following message unto the
> people, saying~
>

>> Google Groups, for better or worse, brought the masses to Usenet. With the
>> decline in ISPs, such as mine recently, wishing to host newsgroups, Google
>> Groups may eventually be the only way to access newsgroups.
>

> Actually AOheLl initially brought "the masses" here, many years before
> G--gl- ever came about. Many claim that we've now moved on to October 1993
> at long last, since AOheLl dropped its Usenet support several years back,
> but G--gl- are really just continuing it. Broadly speaking, the September
> that Never Ended, for all practical purposes, still hasn't ended.
>
> Just saying....
>
AOL never managed to get a foothold in this country, though they did try
very hard. So, for us at least, Google Groups was the beginning of mass
entry to Usenet.

--

Krypsis

[Krypsis]

On 20/06/2012 12:58 PM, Sqwertz wrote:

> On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 06:33:13 +1000, Krypsis wrote:
>
>> Google Groups may eventually be the only way to access newsgroups.
>

> That would be theoretically impossible since the bulk of Google groups
> would not exist if it weren't for those same servers that are
> providing us access from our local news clients. Without those
> servers, it would NOT be Usenet. And without Usenet, the majority of
> existing users will not use the Google interface.
>
> Another clueless idiot.
>
> -sw
>
You apparently, are clueless as Google provides Usenet servers as well.
IIRC, they also host what used to be known as the Usenet archives. They
took over Deja News...

Check this out
---------------------------------------

Kinds of groups hosted by Google

Google provides two distinct kinds of groups: traditional Usenet groups,
and non-Usenet groups that are more similar to mailing lists. The latter
type is accessible only by web or by e-mail, not by NNTP. The Google
Groups user interface and help messages do not use a distinct name for
mailing-list style groups, referring to both styles of group as "Google
Groups."[15]

Google recognizes the X-No-Archive header and displays messages
containing it for only seven days, after which the article becomes no
longer available to the public. Google also recognizes the "-- " Usenet
signature delimiter, and removes the significant space at the end (thus,
proper Usenet signatures can't be added to articles posted via Google
Groups).

-------------------------------------
The above cite from; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Groups


--

Krypsis

[Cheryl]

On 6/18/2012 8:19 AM, dsi1 wrote:

> Computing is changing from the way it's been since the 90s. We're all
> going to have to change with it whether we like it or not. It's not
> necessary that you believe me. Believing that you won't change seems as
> likely to happen as refusing to grow up. As it goes, most of the

> dinosaurs were wiped out by a single event. You techno-dinosaurs are
> only around as long as the servers remain active. This seems like a slim
> thread to hang your world on.

Nonsense. major OS vendors are still creating newer desktop/laptop OS's
and even if the mobile ones are improving, our usual way of accessing
the web is still alive and well. As long as the "net" has to be a host
to the web, the same is true for us clients. You can choose to be
mobile, some of us can choose to be couch potatoes for probably many years.

[Cheryl]

On 6/19/2012 4:33 PM, Krypsis wrote:
>>
> Google Groups, for better or worse, brought the masses to Usenet. With
> the decline in ISPs, such as mine recently, wishing to host newsgroups,
> Google Groups may eventually be the only way to access newsgroups.

There are still many news server hosts that probably won't succumb to
google or any other mega hosting empire's decision to stop aggregating
nntp. The number of active groups might decrease but due to the nature
of nntp, any server that wants to receive/send messages will do so.

[Cheryl]

On 6/18/2012 6:46 PM, George M. Middius wrote:
> dsi1 wrote:
>
>> I'm interested in ideas and concepts, not people. I'm not interested in
>> talking about other people and I'm certainly not interested in talking
>> about what you think about me personally.
>
> How tall are you? I can't evaluate your ideas without some idea of
> your personal attributes.
>

He already told us he has a small penis.

[Cheryl]

On 6/18/2012 6:44 PM, George M. Middius wrote:
> sqwishy's rag is on fire again.
>
>>> Oh yeah, I'm just going to have to ignore your ass again if you make
>>> another personal remark. Have a nice day! :-)
>>
>> That's fine (asshole!). I will enjoy pointing out your idiocy and
>> making a fool out of you whether you choose to respond or not.

>
> I think you've got the count down to 3 now, sqwish. (That's 3 regular
> posters with whom you're not at war.) Are you expecting to reach 0
> within days, weeks, or months?
>
>

So do you just bow down and not debate anything you're against whether
in print or voice? Debates are healthy. Deciding that you want to
ignore other people's opinion and not state your own is fucked up. Or
do you just agree with everyone?

[dsi1]

On 6/19/2012 9:14 PM, Cheryl wrote:
> On 6/18/2012 8:19 AM, dsi1 wrote:
>
>> Computing is changing from the way it's been since the 90s. We're all
>> going to have to change with it whether we like it or not. It's not
>> necessary that you believe me. Believing that you won't change seems as
>> likely to happen as refusing to grow up. As it goes, most of

>> dinosaurs were wiped out by a single event. You techno-dinosaurs are
>> only around as long as the servers remain active. This seems like a slim
>> thread to hang your world on.
>
> Nonsense. major OS vendors are still creating newer desktop/laptop OS's
> and even if the mobile ones are improving, our usual way of accessing
> the web is still alive and well. As long as the "net" has to be a host
> to the web, the same is true for us clients. You can choose to be
> mobile, some of us can choose to be couch potatoes for probably many years.
>
>

My guess is that most folks will be using tablets and mobile devices
using cell phone based OSes and that desktops will be replaced by
ultraportable type laptops. I know - pretty wacky but that seems to be
the natural progression of things.

[Cheryl]

On 6/19/2012 5:13 PM, MotoFox wrote:
> And it came to pass that dsi1 delivered the following message unto the
> people, saying~
>

>> I think that's fine. I don't see anything wrong with the users stepping up
>> to the plate to preserve their own thing. I used to post on old bulletin
>> board systems and I thought that was great time. Too bad the old bulletin
>> boards got overshadowed by Usenet. OTOH, there are a lot of great
>> web-based forums out there.
>
> Actually, I think the World Wide Web itself (ugh) kind of overshadowed
> bulletin boards. I seem to recall the $ecret $ervice and the early Clinton
> administration also had a bit to do with it as well. Some of the better
> BBSen "out there" did provide Usenet access, and I think there might be a
> few that still do.
>

If old bbs were the only way other than facebook or google groups, and
Usenet died, I'd choose the old bbs. BBs were my first experience with
connecting with people across the world and I liked it.

[Somebody]

"Cheryl" <jlhs...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4fe17aa7$0$28689$a826...@newsreader.readnews.com...

out of small penises, come interesting creations. Even a little one can
beget something special.

[Cheryl]

On 6/20/2012 12:31 AM, Somebody wrote:

> That is all I want (and maybe Killfile capability, but that's not necessary
> if you can just mark messages.) Why GG doesn't have threading and let you
> mark messages, I don't understand. It's just cumbersome to use as is.

Because GG is just aggregated from the original source.

[Feranija]

On 19/06/12 21:31, Somebody wrote:

>
> Why GG doesn't have threading and let you
> mark messages, I don't understand. It's just cumbersome to use as is.

Can't mark messages as read though, but there is threading on senders,
by reply or by date. See this:

https://groups.google.com/group/rec.food.cooking/browse_frm/thread/caac9be8ccd85112/88daee1df50062ce?tvc=1#88daee1df50062ce

[dsi1]

Thanks - I'm glad that someone is paying attention to my humble posts.
Makes me feel... special. Although to tell you the truth, it don't look
that tiny due the it being attached to my smallish gnome-body.

[George M. Middius]

Cheryl wrote:

> >> I'm interested in ideas and concepts, not people. I'm not interested in
> >> talking about other people and I'm certainly not interested in talking
> >> about what you think about me personally.
> >
> > How tall are you? I can't evaluate your ideas without some idea of
> > your personal attributes.
> >
> He already told us he has a small penis.

Assuming that's true, we now know 2 of his attributes. I still can't
decide whether to accept his opinions. Go find out the color of his
leg hair.

[George M. Middius]

You talkin' to me? You talking to me? Where's my taxi?

[Nunya Bidnits]

"Krypsis" <kry...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:jrrloh$c6i$3...@dont-email.me...

AOL had a very significant foothold in the online market that existed at the
time. A combination of improving browsers and the html based WWW, along with
better connectivity options, killed off both the demand for their GUI based
service and the demand for their included internet access. As the average
consumer became more comfortable with html based content and better browsers
and email programs became native in operating systems, AOL's old model
became irrelevant and they failed to make any appropriate adjustments to
preserve market share in a timely manner.

MartyB

[Nunya Bidnits]

"dsi1" <dsi...@hawaiiantel.net> wrote in message
news:4fe0f5b6$0$13449$882e...@usenet-news.net...
> On 6/19/2012 11:13 AM, MotoFox wrote:
>> And it came to pass that dsi1 delivered the following message unto the
>> people, saying~
>>

>>> I think that's fine. I don't see anything wrong with the users stepping
>>> up
>>> to the plate to preserve their own thing. I used to post on old bulletin
>>> board systems and I thought that was great time. Too bad the old
>>> bulletin
>>> boards got overshadowed by Usenet. OTOH, there are a lot of great
>>> web-based forums out there.
>>
>> Actually, I think the World Wide Web itself (ugh) kind of overshadowed
>> bulletin boards. I seem to recall the $ecret $ervice and the early
>> Clinton
>> administration also had a bit to do with it as well. Some of the better
>> BBSen "out there" did provide Usenet access, and I think there might be a
>> few that still do.
>>
>

> One thing's for sure - the WWW pretty much changed the course of human
> history and the ability to connect with the world through a computer has

> affected every facet of our lives. It's scarey that this one thing could
> have changed our lives so significantly in such a short time.

What really changed the world was widely available computing power,
affordable local electronic storage, and a communications infrastructure
which supported accessible protocols capable of connecting virtually all
computers independently. The WWW became a popular protocol, but if it wasn't
that it would have been something else.

MartyB

[Brooklyn1]

On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 15:04:19 +1000, Krypsis <kry...@optusnet.com.au>
wrote:

Monitoring is all those law enforcement pervs can do, nudity and porn
(whatever porn is) is not illegal on the net. What they're monitoring
for are certain individuals who are on "Wanted" lists, but the content
of those sites is not illegal... no one is forcing you to look... to
my knowledge no one has ever suffered any harm from willingly viewing
a video of a boobilicious slut administering a blowjob to a nine inch
penis. Lookit all those blown up limbless Vets being pandered on TV,
now that is real porn. Right now the biggest porn star on the planet
is Borack Hussein Obama, for sodomizing the US economy... he's only
harming the have-nots by stopping the haves from spending. No one on
welfare ever hired anyone.

[Nunya Bidnits]

"Sqwertz" <swe...@cluemail.compost> wrote in message
news:1sc8hkc5cso4o$.dlg@sqwertz.com...

> On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 06:23:54 +1000, Krypsis wrote:
>
>> On 19/06/2012 4:57 AM, Sqwertz wrote:
>>> On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 10:45:33 -0400, Gary wrote:
>>>
>>>> If I could get back some of my favorite nudie binary groups, I would
>>>> gladly
>>>> pay. ;o
>>>
>>> What nudie stuff is on newsgroups that isn't available VIA the Web?
>>> And with the Web it's much more searchable and you get thumbnails so you
>>> can instantly see if you're interested without spending any more
>>> bandwidth/time on the site.
>>>
>> Nothing at all! The relevant police departments are watching both.
>
> Nudity and porn is not illegal.
>
> -sw

If porn was illegal, Sheldon would be doing life.

Just sayin'.

[Brooklyn1]

On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 15:06:15 +1000, Krypsis <kry...@optusnet.com.au>
wrote:

What BS, all the major ISPs supported usenet when users had to pay for
net access. Once technological advances made it possible to log on to
the net for free with dial-up all ISPs ceased to support usenet and
most other content included in ones subscription, today everything is
a la carte. Yoose noobie pinheads sure endow AOL with inordinate
powers. Now AOL is free, but for the same money one can subscribe to
Forte Agent. It's not at all about AOL, it's all about yoose cheapo
entitlement bastards always looking for a free tit. I tried Google
Groups, it sucks, and constant outages, it's free like ice in the
winter. In over two years I never once launched Agent and it didn't
work flawlessly. I sign on with Verizon but I don't care for their
layout so for email and surfing I still use AOL. Over the years I've
used several ISPs but none have as user friendly a layout as AOL. I
think the Verizon web page is a disaster, so is Comcast, Optonline,
RoadRunner, and others. I'd not be at all surprised if now that it's
free all yoose AOL bashers have AOL loaded on your PC.

[sf]

On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:31:12 -0400, "Somebody"
<tom.un...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Why GG doesn't have threading and let you
> mark messages, I don't understand. It's just cumbersome to use as is.

You can get "tree view" for the individual threads in GG, but there's
no way to see where/which the new posts are as far as I can tell.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

[sf]

On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 21:36:36 -1000, dsi1
<ds...@eternal-september.invalid> wrote:

>
> My guess is that most folks will be using tablets and mobile devices
> using cell phone based OSes and that desktops will be replaced by
> ultraportable type laptops. I know - pretty wacky but that seems to be
> the natural progression of things.

I like the portability factor, so I'm okay with that as long as I can
dock it. Call me a dinosaur, but I prefer using a real keyboard.

[Brooklyn1]

That's not true, if not for the desk top OS there'be no mobiles. Desk
top all-in-ones are becoming bigger and better... most folks prefer a
desk top as a primary, and can still bundle on a mobile. I know
people who use mobiles but only as a back up when not at home. Myself
I can't imagine ever using a mobile, I don't even have a cell phone,
have no use for one. I'm not a telephone person... last I made a
personal call has to be over a week ago... the majority of my phone
usage, albeit limited, is for necessesary business appointments;
doctor/dentist, Rx, repairmen... last week the garage door mechanic.
I've been driving for more than 50 years, never once did I have an
urge to make a personal phone call while driving. Even with
passengers I rarely join in the conversation, I'd much rather keep my
attention fully on my driving. I would never want to be a passenger
with a driver who was yakking on their cell phone, better chances were
they drunk on booze. I see those schmucks having telephone
conversations while driving, they'll never admit it but they're
weaving all over the road, they're a menace... it's safer getting a
blowjob while driving.

[Brooklyn1]

On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 03:22:15 -0400, Cheryl <jlhs...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On 6/19/2012 4:33 PM, Krypsis wrote:
>>>
>> Google Groups, for better or worse, brought the masses to Usenet. With
>> the decline in ISPs, such as mine recently, wishing to host newsgroups,
>> Google Groups may eventually be the only way to access newsgroups.

Bullshit, not everyone is a cheapo bastard.

[dsi1]

The truth is that most everybody would rather use a real keyboard.

[dsi1]

On 6/20/2012 6:07 AM, Brooklyn1 wrote:

> dsi1 wrote:
>>
>> My guess is that most folks will be using tablets and mobile devices
>> using cell phone based OSes and that desktops will be replaced by
>> ultraportable type laptops. I know - pretty wacky but that seems to be
>> the natural progression of things.
>
> That's not true, if not for the desk top OS there'be no mobiles. Desk
> top all-in-ones are becoming bigger and better... most folks prefer a
> desk top as a primary, and can still bundle on a mobile. I know
> people who use mobiles but only as a back up when not at home. Myself
> I can't imagine ever using a mobile, I don't even have a cell phone,
> have no use for one. I'm not a telephone person... last I made a
> personal call has to be over a week ago... the majority of my phone
> usage, albeit limited, is for necessesary business appointments;
> doctor/dentist, Rx, repairmen... last week the garage door mechanic.
> I've been driving for more than 50 years, never once did I have an
> urge to make a personal phone call while driving. Even with
> passengers I rarely join in the conversation, I'd much rather keep my
> attention fully on my driving. I would never want to be a passenger
> with a driver who was yakking on their cell phone, better chances were
> they drunk on booze. I see those schmucks having telephone
> conversations while driving, they'll never admit it but they're
> weaving all over the road, they're a menace... it's safer getting a
> blowjob while driving.
>

There's a lot more iOS and Android OS devices than desktop PCs being
sold these days. I've been saying for years that the battle for the
handheld devices would be fierce and that has come to pass. What I
didn't anticipate is that Microsoft would just completely sit it out.
Windows 8 is an opening salvo in mobile computing OS but unless they
give it away, it's not going to be competitive.

My guess is that for a lot of folks, buying another yet Wintel computer
will be an unattractive proposition. I'm not sure if I'll ever assemble
another desktop computer. Too bad, I enjoyed doing that.

[dsi1]

On 6/20/2012 7:59 AM, Al Gore wrote:

> On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 11:54:44 -1000, dsi1 wrote:
>
>> One thing's for sure - the WWW pretty much changed the course of human
>> history and the ability to connect with the world through a computer has
>> affected every facet of our lives. It's scarey that this one thing could
>> have changed our lives so significantly in such a short time.
>

> That is so profound. Can I quote you on that?
>
> -ag
>

Why? You were the one that said it first.

[George M. Middius]

dsi1 wrote:

> The truth is that most everybody would rather use a real keyboard.

Not true. I've seen people typing fast and sure on those damn
itty-bitty notebooks.