SHOULD THE REGULAR POSTERS OF THIS GROUP MOVE?

To be rid of the spammers and sex stuff?

If enough are interested I could try to find a format somewhere. I
miss what this group was

the new home wouldnt allow spammers

wrote in message
...
SHOULD THE REGULAR POSTERS OF THIS GROUP MOVE?

To be rid of the spammers and sex stuff?

If enough are interested I could try to find a format somewhere. I
miss what this group was

the new home wouldnt allow spammers

It's easy to NOT LOOK at the spam. I don't like it, but this "format" is
still preferable to some of the cob job discussion boards people design.

wrote:
SHOULD THE REGULAR POSTERS OF THIS GROUP MOVE?

To be rid of the spammers and sex stuff?

usenet it what it is...if you don't have a newsreader that can filter
what you don't want to see, find one. Won't be perfect, but you can
probably filter the most egregious w/ two or three filters.

--

On Nov 15, 9:27 am, " wrote:
SHOULD THE REGULAR POSTERS OF THIS GROUP MOVE?

To be rid of the spammers and sex stuff?

If enough are interested I could try to find a format somewhere. I
miss what this group was

the new home wouldnt allow spammers

Would the new group allow posting in all caps?

On Nov 15, 6:54 am, dpb wrote:
wrote:
SHOULD THE REGULAR POSTERS OF THIS GROUP MOVE?

To be rid of the spammers and sex stuff?

usenet it what it is...if you don't have a newsreader that can filter
what you don't want to see, find one. Won't be perfect, but you can
probably filter the most egregious w/ two or three filters.

--

Finding a way to deal with it is better than abandoning this
group.....the spammers will just follow.

If you have filtering capability, a couple of well chosen filters
will get rid of most of it.

Does it do any good to "report as spam" offending messages or posters?

cheers
Bob

"BobK207" wrote in message
...
On Nov 15, 6:54 am, dpb wrote:
wrote:
SHOULD THE REGULAR POSTERS OF THIS GROUP MOVE?

To be rid of the spammers and sex stuff?

usenet it what it is...if you don't have a newsreader that can filter
what you don't want to see, find one. Won't be perfect, but you can
probably filter the most egregious w/ two or three filters.

--

Finding a way to deal with it is better than abandoning this
group.....the spammers will just follow.

If you have filtering capability, a couple of well chosen filters
will get rid of most of it.

Does it do any good to "report as spam" offending messages or posters?

cheers
Bob

No.

In article
,
" wrote:

SHOULD THE REGULAR POSTERS OF THIS GROUP MOVE?

To be rid of the spammers and sex stuff?

If enough are interested I could try to find a format somewhere. I
miss what this group was

the new home wouldnt allow spammers

Good idea. I'd also disallow the people who don't think my jokes are
funny.

In article , " wrote:
SHOULD THE REGULAR POSTERS OF THIS GROUP MOVE?

To be rid of the spammers and sex stuff?

No, you should either learn to ignore stuff you don't want to see, or learn to
use killfiles so you won't see it.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

wrote in message
...
SHOULD THE REGULAR POSTERS OF THIS GROUP MOVE?

To be rid of the spammers and sex stuff?

If enough are interested I could try to find a format somewhere.
I
miss what this group was

the new home wouldnt allow spammers

And, as the arbiter of all that is good, have you given any
thought to how much effort would be needed to moderate a 'group of
this magnitude? How would you prevent participation in an
unmoderated (of which ahr is already) 'group? Have you ever run a
forum?

The Ranger
--
"It appears to me that whoever thought of this plan didn't think
it all the way through."
-- T-Rex, "Meet the Robinsons"

In article
,
" wrote:

SHOULD THE REGULAR POSTERS OF THIS GROUP MOVE?

No. ..and I hope you don't. I enjoy reading your words here.

To be rid of the spammers and sex stuff?

I have been diligently configuring my filters so I see less and less of it.
If the "real" folks here would do the same, *AND* resist the urge to REPLY to
the trolls and spammers (circumventing my filters), it would be almost like
the good, old days.

If enough are interested I could try to find a format somewhere. I
miss what this group was

the new home wouldnt allow spammers

There are already plenty of forums that do that. Sadly, they are all
web-based - an interface that I CANNOT stand.

There are distinct advantages - and DISadvantages - to a moderated forum,
regardless of the user interface:

The advantages include virtually NO spam, trolls or OT postings.

The biggest DISadvantage, besides the user interface, is the
occasional/inevitable iron-fisted, out-of-control, whacko moderator. These
frustrating Nazis can, without notice or negotiation, shut out ANYONE they
choose. Such forums are true, on-line dictatorships. Whether or not they are
a BENEVOLENT dictatorship depends on the whims of the moderator.

I'll keep using usenet - and my filters - until I can stand it no longer. I
have quite a ways to go before that happens, thankfully.
--

JR

In article
,
BobK207 wrote:

Does it do any good to "report as spam" offending messages or posters?

No. At least, I'm confident doing so is a wasted effort.

I have been on-line since 1989 and have been reported only once: Here.

Someone, obviously with an axe to grind, reported to my ISP that I was a
spammer. I had posted about a not-so-new "safe" tablesaw, including a link to
the maker's web site, and that was all it took.

I received a boilerplate warning from my ISP and that was the end of it.

Real spammers hijack servers and otherwise conceal their REAL identity so that
actually FINDING them, much less terminating their connectivity, is virtually
impossible. It's the wild west out here, for sure.
--

JR

In article
,
DerbyDad03 wrote:

Would the new group allow posting in all caps?

Aw, ya picky bas*ard.

A decent moderator (there are some) will keep an eye on such "infractions"
and, if the practice becomes excessive and/or regular, mention it, either
publicly or privately, to the "offender".

The same moderator would sooner chastise YOU for your reply: Doing their job.

Then there's the timeless, top-posting versus bottom-posting debate.
Depending on the moderator, this could be addressed.

What would be HIGH on an old-timer (experienced) moderator's "list" would be
quoting, either the lack of it (unlikely) or EXCESSIVE quoting.

Bandwidth for these text forums being virtually limitless these days,
excessive quoting isn't the issue it once was when private citizens PAID real
ca$h to move words at 1200 baud via long distance dialup.

Still, two and three pages of multi-generational quotes, only to add a line or
two of original text, is the hallmark of an incredibly LAZY poster.

A moderated forum is a whole, different animal.
--

JR

In article ,
Smitty Two wrote:

I'd also disallow the people who don't think my jokes are funny.

ARGH!! [sputtering]

Make 'em READ ONLY, eh?

Now THAT's funny!
--

JR

I filter no one, and don't see enough posts here to be a problem. You just
skip the junk. It's real simple.

s


"Jim Redelfs" wrote in message
...
In article
,
BobK207 wrote:

Does it do any good to "report as spam" offending messages or posters?

No. At least, I'm confident doing so is a wasted effort.

I have been on-line since 1989 and have been reported only once: Here.

Someone, obviously with an axe to grind, reported to my ISP that I was a
spammer. I had posted about a not-so-new "safe" tablesaw, including a
link to
the maker's web site, and that was all it took.

I received a boilerplate warning from my ISP and that was the end of it.

Real spammers hijack servers and otherwise conceal their REAL identity so
that
actually FINDING them, much less terminating their connectivity, is
virtually
impossible. It's the wild west out here, for sure.
--

JR

"Steve Barker" wrote

I filter no one, and don't see enough posts here to be a problem. You just
skip the junk. It's real simple.

I was wondering what I was missing. This is such an informative,
mostly on topic newsgroup that I can't believe someone is having
such a fit. Oh, well.

nancy

On Nov 15, 11:33 am, wrote:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 10:22:24 -0600, Jim Redelfs





wrote:
In article
,
DerbyDad03 wrote:

Would the new group allow posting in all caps?

Aw, ya picky bas*ard.

A decent moderator (there are some) will keep an eye on such "infractions"
and, if the practice becomes excessive and/or regular, mention it, either
publicly or privately, to the "offender".

The same moderator would sooner chastise YOU for your reply: Doing their job.

Then there's the timeless, top-posting versus bottom-posting debate.
Depending on the moderator, this could be addressed.

What would be HIGH on an old-timer (experienced) moderator's "list" would be
quoting, either the lack of it (unlikely) or EXCESSIVE quoting.

Bandwidth for these text forums being virtually limitless these days,
excessive quoting isn't the issue it once was when private citizens PAID real
ca$h to move words at 1200 baud via long distance dialup.

Still, two and three pages of multi-generational quotes, only to add a line or
two of original text, is the hallmark of an incredibly LAZY poster.

A moderated forum is a whole, different animal.

So is a spayed or neutered dog.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The same moderator would sooner chastise YOU for your reply:
Doing their job.

Sort of a Catch 22 here...

While a moderator might chastise me if I did their job, they wouldn't
need to since I wouldn't do it if there was a moderator.

However, since this is essentially a self-moderated forum, it's
perfectly acceptable for any and all members to point out the foibles
of others.

For example, since there is no moderator, it's perfectly acceptable
for any poster to call other posters "incredibly LAZY" (sic) based on
the quoting methods they use in their posts.

To be rid of the spammers and sex stuff?

If you don't know how to use filters, or can't recognize and pass on headers
such as:

LIVE SEX MOVIES WITH GOATS

You need to pile your computer stuff in a box and sell it. You're too
stupid to own a computer.

STeve

"Jim Redelfs" wrote in message
...
In article
,
DerbyDad03 wrote:

Would the new group allow posting in all caps?

Aw, ya picky bas*ard.

A decent moderator (there are some) will keep an eye on such "infractions"
and, if the practice becomes excessive and/or regular, mention it, either
publicly or privately, to the "offender".

The same moderator would sooner chastise YOU for your reply: Doing their
job.

I have this nightmare that we would get a Moderator who would post one
answer to everything:

"Look it up in Google, you lazy puke."

Steve

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

wrote in message
...


SHOULD THE REGULAR POSTERS OF THIS GROUP MOVE?

To be rid of the spammers and sex stuff?

If enough are interested I could try to find a format somewhere. I
miss what this group was

the new home wouldnt allow spammers



It's easy to NOT LOOK at the spam. I don't like it, but this "format" is
still preferable to some of the cob job discussion boards people design.




Ditto.

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 14:52:08 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
SHOULD THE REGULAR POSTERS OF THIS GROUP MOVE?

To be rid of the spammers and sex stuff?

If enough are interested I could try to find a format somewhere. I
miss what this group was

the new home wouldnt allow spammers

It's easy to NOT LOOK at the spam. I don't like it, but this "format" is
still preferable to some of the cob job discussion boards people design.


I agree. If I had to go thru the whole hassle of signing in, and
waste all the time it takes to get thru those web based groups, I
would not read the group. I have belonged to a few Yahoo groups and
they are slower than molasses in January, and it seemed that about 40%
of the time I'd get error messages when I tried to sign in.
Eventually I just quit using them. Too much hassle. Besides that,
those yahoo groups and others fill the page with their own ads which
are often worse than spam because they cover half the page.
I'd rather filter or delete the spam on here. It's annoying but could
be worse. Besides that, there has to be some reason that they keep
posting these "natural penis enlargement" spams. One of the
"regulars" on this group must need this...... Now who is it? C'mon,
fess up !!!! We'll even find you a woman if you fess up now.....
That should do the job. ha ha ha ha lol.

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 10:07:48 -0600, Jim Redelfs
wrote:

There are already plenty of forums that do that. Sadly, they are all
web-based - an interface that I CANNOT stand.

That's exactly how I feel about those web based things, and being on
dialup, it would take me the whole day just to READ all the posts that
are on here, much less reply to anything

There are distinct advantages - and DISadvantages - to a moderated forum,
regardless of the user interface:

The advantages include virtually NO spam, trolls or OT postings.

I have always enjoyed the light-hearted attitude on this group. It
stays fairly close to the topic, but still leaves room for some funny
stuff, even if it is a bit off topic. I have to admit I enjoy posting
some of that stuff myself, in between the serious stuff. Some people
seem to think everyone that is not 100% on topic and serious is a
troll. Yet they go to business meetings (in real life) and none of
them are all serious either. We need a little goofiness. The spam on
the other hand is a problem, but thats what filters are for.

The biggest DISadvantage, besides the user interface, is the
occasional/inevitable iron-fisted, out-of-control, whacko moderator. These
frustrating Nazis can, without notice or negotiation, shut out ANYONE they
choose. Such forums are true, on-line dictatorships. Whether or not they are
a BENEVOLENT dictatorship depends on the whims of the moderator.

I joined a moderated group some years back. The group was on the
fringe of politics, and in many ways, politics influenced what the
group was discussing, more than anything else. I made a comment
against our president, and was abruptly kicked off the group by the
"Nazi-like" moderator. I received a private email from the mod.
telling me that I would be allowed back on the group after I "cleaned
up my act", and I would then be required to post an apology to the
group. I told that mod. to shove the group up her butt.

I'll keep using usenet - and my filters - until I can stand it no longer. I
have quite a ways to go before that happens, thankfully.
--

This newsgroup has far less spam than other groups. My thoughts are
that those who run the usenet servers should be doing a better job of
blocking the obvious spam. Especially those who charge a fee to use
their service. Almost every day there seems to be a specific spam
that goes to every newsgroup in existence. Why are they not blocking
these? I cant expect them to block every instance of spam, but these
"newsgroup flooders" should be blocked before they even appear. It
can not be all that difficult to automatically detect when a messsage
subject it being posted to ALL groups, and block them, or block
something that is being repeated daily such as the "natural penis...."
stuff. Many people pay to use these groups. Why are those who make
the money not doing their job?

On Nov 15, 8:27 am, " wrote:
SHOULD THE REGULAR POSTERS OF THIS GROUP MOVE?

To be rid of the spammers and sex stuff?

If enough are interested I could try to find a format somewhere. I
miss what this group was

the new home wouldnt allow spammers

It would be nice if there were a way to eliminate the spam, and
discourage flaming. I for one would be interested. Nice of you to
volunteer. I read the postings via deja news, which does not allow for
filtering as far as I know. As many others have said, you just skip
the spam, but still it would be better if it weren't there.

I regularly read one moderated group, and that is one way to go, you
can eliminate spam and flamers. A good moderator can do so without
being unduly restrictive. And look, it's a free market -- if you
don't like the moderated group, then you don't have to visit or join
it. However, the degree of traffic on this group would make
moderating a fairly big job, I think. -- H

On Nov 15, 4:57 pm, Norminn wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
...

SHOULD THE REGULAR POSTERS OF THIS GROUP MOVE?

To be rid of the spammers and sex stuff?

If enough are interested I could try to find a format somewhere. I
miss what this group was

the new home wouldnt allow spammers

It's easy to NOT LOOK at the spam. I don't like it, but this "format" is
still preferable to some of the cob job discussion boards people design.

Ditto.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No. Leave it the way it is. Warts and all!

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 06:27:40 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

SHOULD THE REGULAR POSTERS OF THIS GROUP MOVE?

To be rid of the spammers and sex stuff?

If enough are interested I could try to find a format somewhere. I
miss what this group was

the new home wouldnt allow spammers

Are you familiar with the "ALT" in alt.home repair or other "alt"
groups?

By nature it suggest Anarchy.

wrote:

This newsgroup has far less spam than other groups. My thoughts are
that those who run the usenet servers should be doing a better job of
blocking the obvious spam. Especially those who charge a fee to use
their service. Almost every day there seems to be a specific spam
that goes to every newsgroup in existence. Why are they not blocking
these? I cant expect them to block every instance of spam, but these
"newsgroup flooders" should be blocked before they even appear. It
can not be all that difficult to automatically detect when a messsage
subject it being posted to ALL groups, and block them, or block
something that is being repeated daily such as the "natural penis...."
stuff. Many people pay to use these groups. Why are those who make
the money not doing their job?

Obviously newgroup servers can't read EVERY missive that comes their way.

Some do a pretty good job on spam and dip-floods and other things that can
be detected automatically. SuperNews for one.

One group I know, news.admin.net-abuse.email, still gets flooded with 3000
nonsense messages in a 24-hour period in an attempt, it is thought, to
diminish information sharing regarding spam. SuperNews (for one) discards
this garbage and regular visitors never see it.

--- aside
One of the funniest messages I ever saw was a response to a email admin
kvetching because his IP address was caught up in a range of blocked IP
addresses. He demanded his IP address be excepted from the range.

Perhaps a metaphor will explain things:
1. Your emails are like so many sperm, ready to leap out and do their thing.
2. Your ISP is a prick.
3. The blocklist is a condom.
4. You are asking for one teeny hole to be poked in the rubber.
5. We are innocent maidens who do not like surprises.

You'll have to get us drunk first.

On Nov 15, 2:47 pm, wrote:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 10:07:48 -0600, Jim Redelfs

wrote:
There are already plenty of forums that do that. Sadly, they are all
web-based - an interface that I CANNOT stand.

That's exactly how I feel about those web based things, and being on
dialup, it would take me the whole day just to READ all the posts that
are on here, much less reply to anything

There are distinct advantages - and DISadvantages - to a moderated forum,
regardless of the user interface:

The advantages include virtually NO spam, trolls or OT postings.

I have always enjoyed the light-hearted attitude on this group. It
stays fairly close to the topic, but still leaves room for some funny
stuff, even if it is a bit off topic. I have to admit I enjoy posting
some of that stuff myself, in between the serious stuff. Some people
seem to think everyone that is not 100% on topic and serious is a
troll. Yet they go to business meetings (in real life) and none of
them are all serious either. We need a little goofiness. The spam on
the other hand is a problem, but thats what filters are for.

The biggest DISadvantage, besides the user interface, is the
occasional/inevitable iron-fisted, out-of-control, whacko moderator. These
frustrating Nazis can, without notice or negotiation, shut out ANYONE they
choose. Such forums are true, on-line dictatorships. Whether or not they are
a BENEVOLENT dictatorship depends on the whims of the moderator.

I joined a moderated group some years back. The group was on the
fringe of politics, and in many ways, politics influenced what the
group was discussing, more than anything else. I made a comment
against our president, and was abruptly kicked off the group by the
"Nazi-like" moderator. I received a private email from the mod.
telling me that I would be allowed back on the group after I "cleaned
up my act", and I would then be required to post an apology to the
group. I told that mod. to shove the group up her butt.

I'll keep using usenet - and my filters - until I can stand it no longer. I
have quite a ways to go before that happens, thankfully.
--

This newsgroup has far less spam than other groups. My thoughts are
that those who run the usenet servers should be doing a better job of
blocking the obvious spam. Especially those who charge a fee to use
their service. Almost every day there seems to be a specific spam
that goes to every newsgroup in existence. Why are they not blocking
these? I cant expect them to block every instance of spam, but these
"newsgroup flooders" should be blocked before they even appear. It
can not be all that difficult to automatically detect when a messsage
subject it being posted to ALL groups, and block them, or block
something that is being repeated daily such as the "natural penis...."
stuff. Many people pay to use these groups. Why are those who make
the money not doing their job?

Should not the huge thing called Google look after it as they put
there name on it it is becoming less fun to sort thru the crap

In article
,
jim wrote:

Should not the huge thing called Google look after it as they put
there name on it it is becoming less fun to sort thru the crap

Look after what? Put *their* name on what? What crap? Inquiring minds
want to know what you're talking about.

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 18:48:14 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article
,
jim wrote:

Should not the huge thing called Google look after it as they put
there name on it it is becoming less fun to sort thru the crap

Look after what? Put *their* name on what? What crap? Inquiring minds
want to know what you're talking about.

"If brains was lard, Jethro couldn't grease a pan."
- Jed Clampett

"terry" wrote

No. Leave it the way it is. Warts and all!

I agree. I don't want to converse with someone too immature or
inexperienced to figure out how to work a filter or ignore a twit.

BLOCK SENDER works for me. I have a three strike rule. Unless one says
something so offensive that they're out after the first strike, that is.

Other than that, it's so simple a caveman could do it.

Steve

jim wrote:
On Nov 15, 2:47 pm, wrote:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 10:07:48 -0600, Jim Redelfs

wrote:
There are already plenty of forums that do that. Sadly, they are all
web-based - an interface that I CANNOT stand.
That's exactly how I feel about those web based things, and being on
dialup, it would take me the whole day just to READ all the posts that
are on here, much less reply to anything

There are distinct advantages - and DISadvantages - to a moderated forum,
regardless of the user interface:
The advantages include virtually NO spam, trolls or OT postings.
I have always enjoyed the light-hearted attitude on this group. It
stays fairly close to the topic, but still leaves room for some funny
stuff, even if it is a bit off topic. I have to admit I enjoy posting
some of that stuff myself, in between the serious stuff. Some people
seem to think everyone that is not 100% on topic and serious is a
troll. Yet they go to business meetings (in real life) and none of
them are all serious either. We need a little goofiness. The spam on
the other hand is a problem, but thats what filters are for.

The biggest DISadvantage, besides the user interface, is the
occasional/inevitable iron-fisted, out-of-control, whacko moderator. These
frustrating Nazis can, without notice or negotiation, shut out ANYONE they
choose. Such forums are true, on-line dictatorships. Whether or not they are
a BENEVOLENT dictatorship depends on the whims of the moderator.
I joined a moderated group some years back. The group was on the
fringe of politics, and in many ways, politics influenced what the
group was discussing, more than anything else. I made a comment
against our president, and was abruptly kicked off the group by the
"Nazi-like" moderator. I received a private email from the mod.
telling me that I would be allowed back on the group after I "cleaned
up my act", and I would then be required to post an apology to the
group. I told that mod. to shove the group up her butt.

I'll keep using usenet - and my filters - until I can stand it no longer. I
have quite a ways to go before that happens, thankfully.
--
This newsgroup has far less spam than other groups. My thoughts are
that those who run the usenet servers should be doing a better job of
blocking the obvious spam. Especially those who charge a fee to use
their service. Almost every day there seems to be a specific spam
that goes to every newsgroup in existence. Why are they not blocking
these? I cant expect them to block every instance of spam, but these
"newsgroup flooders" should be blocked before they even appear. It
can not be all that difficult to automatically detect when a messsage
subject it being posted to ALL groups, and block them, or block
something that is being repeated daily such as the "natural penis...."
stuff. Many people pay to use these groups. Why are those who make
the money not doing their job?

Should not the huge thing called Google look after it as they put
there name on it it is becoming less fun to sort thru the crap
Not a damn thing Google could do about it, even if they wanted to. They
don't own or run Usenet, they merely mirror it.

aem sends...

In article ,
aemeijers wrote:

Not a damn thing Google could do about it, even if they wanted to. They
don't own or run Usenet, they merely mirror it.

(In a perverse, funhouse mirror sort of way.)

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 18:34:26 -0800 (PST), jim
wrote:

On Nov 15, 2:47 pm, wrote:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 10:07:48 -0600, Jim Redelfs

wrote:
There are already plenty of forums that do that. Sadly, they are all
web-based - an interface that I CANNOT stand.

That's exactly how I feel about those web based things, and being on
dialup, it would take me the whole day just to READ all the posts that
are on here, much less reply to anything

There are distinct advantages - and DISadvantages - to a moderated forum,
regardless of the user interface:

The advantages include virtually NO spam, trolls or OT postings.

I have always enjoyed the light-hearted attitude on this group. It
stays fairly close to the topic, but still leaves room for some funny
stuff, even if it is a bit off topic. I have to admit I enjoy posting
some of that stuff myself, in between the serious stuff. Some people
seem to think everyone that is not 100% on topic and serious is a
troll. Yet they go to business meetings (in real life) and none of
them are all serious either. We need a little goofiness. The spam on
the other hand is a problem, but thats what filters are for.

The biggest DISadvantage, besides the user interface, is the
occasional/inevitable iron-fisted, out-of-control, whacko moderator. These
frustrating Nazis can, without notice or negotiation, shut out ANYONE they
choose. Such forums are true, on-line dictatorships. Whether or not they are
a BENEVOLENT dictatorship depends on the whims of the moderator.

I joined a moderated group some years back. The group was on the
fringe of politics, and in many ways, politics influenced what the
group was discussing, more than anything else. I made a comment
against our president, and was abruptly kicked off the group by the
"Nazi-like" moderator. I received a private email from the mod.
telling me that I would be allowed back on the group after I "cleaned
up my act", and I would then be required to post an apology to the
group. I told that mod. to shove the group up her butt.

I'll keep using usenet - and my filters - until I can stand it no longer. I
have quite a ways to go before that happens, thankfully.
--

This newsgroup has far less spam than other groups. My thoughts are
that those who run the usenet servers should be doing a better job of
blocking the obvious spam. Especially those who charge a fee to use
their service. Almost every day there seems to be a specific spam
that goes to every newsgroup in existence. Why are they not blocking
these? I cant expect them to block every instance of spam, but these
"newsgroup flooders" should be blocked before they even appear. It
can not be all that difficult to automatically detect when a messsage
subject it being posted to ALL groups, and block them, or block
something that is being repeated daily such as the "natural penis...."
stuff. Many people pay to use these groups. Why are those who make
the money not doing their job?

Should not the huge thing called Google look after it as they put
there name on it it is becoming less fun to sort thru the crap

Thats when it began going downhill. They should have left it alone,
but I suppose they somehow make money from it and thats all the care
about. It's just like the old Egroups. They worked good, were easy
to use, and not flooded with ads. Then Yahoo took over and they are
nearly useless now. As I said before, a large amont of the time
people can not even sign on, An error message just pops up.
I think the internet was a lot more useful and more fun when it first
began. It's just become a giant ad, and the web is much worse than
the newsgroups.

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 04:12:33 GMT, aemeijers wrote:

jim wrote:
On Nov 15, 2:47 pm, wrote:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 10:07:48 -0600, Jim Redelfs

wrote:
There are already plenty of forums that do that. Sadly, they are all
web-based - an interface that I CANNOT stand.
That's exactly how I feel about those web based things, and being on
dialup, it would take me the whole day just to READ all the posts that
are on here, much less reply to anything

There are distinct advantages - and DISadvantages - to a moderated forum,
regardless of the user interface:
The advantages include virtually NO spam, trolls or OT postings.
I have always enjoyed the light-hearted attitude on this group. It
stays fairly close to the topic, but still leaves room for some funny
stuff, even if it is a bit off topic. I have to admit I enjoy posting
some of that stuff myself, in between the serious stuff. Some people
seem to think everyone that is not 100% on topic and serious is a
troll. Yet they go to business meetings (in real life) and none of
them are all serious either. We need a little goofiness. The spam on
the other hand is a problem, but thats what filters are for.

The biggest DISadvantage, besides the user interface, is the
occasional/inevitable iron-fisted, out-of-control, whacko moderator. These
frustrating Nazis can, without notice or negotiation, shut out ANYONE they
choose. Such forums are true, on-line dictatorships. Whether or not they are
a BENEVOLENT dictatorship depends on the whims of the moderator.
I joined a moderated group some years back. The group was on the
fringe of politics, and in many ways, politics influenced what the
group was discussing, more than anything else. I made a comment
against our president, and was abruptly kicked off the group by the
"Nazi-like" moderator. I received a private email from the mod.
telling me that I would be allowed back on the group after I "cleaned
up my act", and I would then be required to post an apology to the
group. I told that mod. to shove the group up her butt.

I'll keep using usenet - and my filters - until I can stand it no longer. I
have quite a ways to go before that happens, thankfully.
--
This newsgroup has far less spam than other groups. My thoughts are
that those who run the usenet servers should be doing a better job of
blocking the obvious spam. Especially those who charge a fee to use
their service. Almost every day there seems to be a specific spam
that goes to every newsgroup in existence. Why are they not blocking
these? I cant expect them to block every instance of spam, but these
"newsgroup flooders" should be blocked before they even appear. It
can not be all that difficult to automatically detect when a messsage
subject it being posted to ALL groups, and block them, or block
something that is being repeated daily such as the "natural penis...."
stuff. Many people pay to use these groups. Why are those who make
the money not doing their job?

Should not the huge thing called Google look after it as they put
there name on it it is becoming less fun to sort thru the crap
Not a damn thing Google could do about it, even if they wanted to. They
don't own or run Usenet, they merely mirror it.

I still dont understand why they bought it. Yes, they have their own
web based groups too, but why did they even touch usenet? All I can
figure is that their web version of usenet is where they make their
money from ads. Usenet used to be completely a separate entity from
the web, and being text based, it not only came before the web, but
was always much faster. It still is faster, but I imagine that they
will create some sort of method to place ads on the newsgroups soon.
Sometimes I wonder if it's Google that allows all the spam and they
make mpney from them. Google is not as sweet and inocent as some
people seem to think. Their goal is to make a buck regardless how.
Their search engine seems to bring up all the commercial money making
sites before they get to home pages and smaller stuff. I've noticed
that the first entries are often ebay links lately, and you'd expect
the opposite since ebay items change daily, while old established
sites would be expected to appear first. I supose ebay pays them to
do this.

aem sends...

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:06:02 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 06:27:40 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

SHOULD THE REGULAR POSTERS OF THIS GROUP MOVE?

To be rid of the spammers and sex stuff?

If enough are interested I could try to find a format somewhere. I
miss what this group was

the new home wouldnt allow spammers

Are you familiar with the "ALT" in alt.home repair or other "alt"
groups?

By nature it suggest Anarchy.

This is true if you go back and read the original intent of all
newsgroups. Of course when the internet first began, it was supposed
to be entirely free, except for connecting (ISP) fees. That sure did
not last very long. Many people probably dont even know that anymore.

Should not the huge thing called Google look after it as they put
there name on it it is becoming less fun to sort thru the crap


Goofiness sells.......anti-spamware, anti-virusware, anti-hackware,
protectyourchildware, etc. My version of windows is two versions behind
the newest. When it no longer handles the newest, fanciest, animated
advertising shoved down the tube at me, I'll just turn it off and go
back to reading stuff that has some value.

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 01:04:43 -0500, Norminn
wrote:


Should not the huge thing called Google look after it as they put
there name on it it is becoming less fun to sort thru the crap


Goofiness sells.......anti-spamware, anti-virusware, anti-hackware,
protectyourchildware, etc. My version of windows is two versions behind
the newest. When it no longer handles the newest, fanciest, animated
advertising shoved down the tube at me, I'll just turn it off and go
back to reading stuff that has some value.

From what I've seen of vista, it has ads built right into the
operating system itself. I played around with store demos and that is
all I saw. In fact that is all the demos did, because it seemed that
nothing worked with out an internet connection.

I'm more than 2 version behind. I have XP on one computer and never
use it. I have win98 on this one and thats the one I like. Not only
that, but newer viruses dont mess with 98. I have to agree about the
fanciest ads, etc,,,, The latest seems to be flash player movie ads.
I'm on dialup, I sure the heck am not going to wait for all that junk
to load. I just block Flash completely. If a site dont load without
it, I dont need that site. I also keep sounds turned off unless I
want to hear something. I hate sites that suddenly blast out some
noise that nearly scares me off my chair.

Years ago, I created a few web pages. Just simple text with a few
pictures and a nice looking background image. Hi-tech meant adding a
few animated .GIF files, and soem scrolling text used sparcely. The
sites loaded quick, did not need lots of power and software, and they
got the message across just as well as all these bloated sites they
have now.

Of course there are still those nervous credit cards. You know, the
ones that shake back and forth (animated gif). I never understood the
point to that. But I do know if I started trembling that much when I
pulled out my credit card, I either have a stolen card, or I'm going
much too far into debt. Whoever made that animation really lacks
artistic creativity.....

In article , jim wrote:

Should not the huge thing called Google look after it as they put
there name on it it is becoming less fun to sort thru the crap

No, they should not. And, in fact, they cannot. "Google Groups" is simply a
web-based interface to Usenet, only one of many ways of getting there. Google
did not create Usenet, Google does not operate Usenet, and Google does not and
cannot control Usenet.

That said... it sure would be helpful if Google would police the interface
they provide. They *are* able to do something about the spam that comes
through their particular portal, but they're not willing to.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article , wrote:
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 04:12:33 GMT, aemeijers wrote:

Not a damn thing Google could do about it, even if they wanted to. They
don't own or run Usenet, they merely mirror it.

I still dont understand why they bought it.

"Bought it"? What on earth are you talking about? Google didn't "buy" Usenet.

Yes, they have their own
web based groups too, but why did they even touch usenet? All I can
figure is that their web version of usenet is where they make their
money from ads.

Well, duh.

Usenet used to be completely a separate entity from
the web,

It still is.

and being text based,

It still is.

it not only came before the web, but
was always much faster. It still is faster, but I imagine that they
will create some sort of method to place ads on the newsgroups soon.

"They" who?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Doug Miller wrote:
I still dont understand why they bought it.

"Bought it"? What on earth are you talking about? Google didn't "buy"
Usenet.

In 2001, Google bought deja.com, the sole archiver of usenet postings going
back to 1995.

In article , "HeyBub"
wrote:

I still dont understand why they bought it.

"Bought it"? What on earth are you talking about?
Google didn't "buy" Usenet.

In 2001, Google bought deja.com, the sole archiver of
usenet postings going back to 1995.

They bought the usenet ARCHIVE, formerly owned and maintained by DejaNews.

And it goes MUCH further back than 1995. I recall the archive goes back to
the early '80s.

As hard-disk drive capacities and bandwidth has increased exponentially, I
suspect there is virtually NO organized effort to supress the garbage that
flows along with the rest of the news. I'll bet "they" gave up on that YEARS
ago.
--

JR

Climb poles and dig holes
Have staplegun, will travel