On Aug 10, 10:14*am, jamesgangnc wrote:
On Aug 10, 10:04*am, Home Guy wrote:









jamesgangnc used improper usenet message composition style by
unnecessarily full-quoting:

Google groups are a bit of pain but they have a web api

That web api is what makes it less ergonomic to use vs a real usenet
client.

and they are free.

As has been mentioned many times in this and related threads, there are
many no-cost usenet servers and client software. *Google's web-based
usenet interface does not have a cost advantage in this argument.

Otherwise you need client software

Which is a much more efficient and ergonomic way to experience usenet

and if you're behind a corporate firewall it might not work
anyway.

If you're behind a corporate firewall, you should presumably be doing
what your employer is paying you to do, instead of slacking off reading
usenet, facebook, etc.

If google would just quit having these mysterious days long
down times.........

I'm glad. *Google-groups is finally going down in flames, rotting within
it's own dysfunctional corpse.

Hopefully the cloak of ignorance will be lifted from all of you using it
and you will experience the dawn of a new age of usenet enlightenment.

The rest of us here will welcome you as you emerge from your dank, dark
cave of google-groups and into the light as you experience usenet the
way it was intended.

I afraid I really don't get this obssesive hatred of google's usenet
api. *It's not fancy but usenet is just text based posts anyway.
It's web based and it's free. *So one can use it anywhere there is web
access. *From any device. *Sure it doesn't have a lot of functionality
but if all one is after is to read usenet enties and occasionally
reply to one it's fine.

Home Guy's moniker says it all - he doesn't leave the house, so he
has no need of accessing newsgroups from anything other than his
blindingly fast, totally dialed in super computer. Good for him.

R