In a couple of months, we may not need to filter out Google posters:
https://support.google.com/groups/answer/11036538?visit_id=638381921477344227-87081626&p=usenet&rd=1#hcfe-content
In alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent, on Thu, 14 Dec 2023 21:08:59
-0500, Arthur T. <arthur@munged.invalid> wrote:
In a couple of months, we may not need to filter out Google posters:
https://support.google.com/groups/answer/11036538?visit_id=638381921477344227-87081626&p=usenet&rd=1#hcfe-content
It doesn't say anything about Google returning the software and
connections to Dejanews. I think that's the least they could do.
In comp.mobile.android, on Fri, 15 Dec 2023 11:46:59 -0500, micky ><NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
In alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent, on Thu, 14 Dec 2023 21:08:59 >>-0500, Arthur T. <arthur@munged.invalid> wrote:
In a couple of months, we may not need to filter out Google posters:
https://support.google.com/groups/answer/11036538?visit_id=638381921477344227-87081626&p=usenet&rd=1#hcfe-content
It doesn't say anything about Google returning the software and
connections to Dejanews. I think that's the least they could do.
"Find a new public Usenet server. The new client you choose will likely
have a default server or a set of curated options for you. If not, to
find a server, do a web search for "public NNTP servers.""
Will likely have a default server? I've never heard of that.
"declined significantly because users have moved to more modern
technologies and formats such as social media and web-based forums."
Yes, they are more "modern" but they are certainly not as good. I once
made a list of 15 reasons they are nowhere near as good as Usenet. But
this is just a comment. It's not google's faulth that Usenet use
declined.
micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> on Fri, 15 Dec 2023 12:13:11 -0500
typed in alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent the following:
In comp.mobile.android, on Fri, 15 Dec 2023 11:46:59 -0500, micky >><NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
In alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent, on Thu, 14 Dec 2023 21:08:59 >>>-0500, Arthur T. <arthur@munged.invalid> wrote:
In a couple of months, we may not need to filter out Google posters:
https://support.google.com/groups/answer/11036538?visit_id=638381921477344227-87081626&p=usenet&rd=1#hcfe-content
It doesn't say anything about Google returning the software and >>>connections to Dejanews. I think that's the least they could do.
"Find a new public Usenet server. The new client you choose will likely >>have a default server or a set of curated options for you. If not, to
find a server, do a web search for "public NNTP servers.""
Will likely have a default server? I've never heard of that.
"declined significantly because users have moved to more modern >>technologies and formats such as social media and web-based forums."
Yes, they are more "modern" but they are certainly not as good. I once >>made a list of 15 reasons they are nowhere near as good as Usenet. But >>this is just a comment. It's not google's faulth that Usenet use
declined.
Ummm, have you tried to use Google Groups"? I have trouble
finding posts I recently made, let alone anything prior to previous
decade.
It's not google's faulth that Usenet use
declined.
It's not google's faulth that Usenet use declined.
That's a matter of opinion.
It seems to me that Google did everything it could to destroy Usenet.
It dumped spam into many groups to the point that they became
unusable, and ignored complaints over a period of years. I may be misremembering this part, but I _think_ they used nonstandard headers
that made problems for existing Usenet clients.
And of course they made the archives unavailable, then available if
you were lucky in your searching, then unavailable again, then
available but you had to use effing Javascript, then unavailable, the available but not all groups were included, then ...
On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 12:13:11 -0500, micky wrote:
It's not google's faulth that Usenet use
declined.
That's a matter of opinion.
It seems to me that Google did everything it could to destroy Usenet.
It dumped spam into many groups to the point that they became
unusable, and ignored complaints over a period of years. I may be >misremembering this part, but I _think_ they used nonstandard headers
that made problems for existing Usenet clients.
And of course they made the archives unavailable, then available if
you were lucky in your searching, then unavailable again, then
available but you had to use effing Javascript, then unavailable, the >available but not all groups were included, then ...
On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 12:13:11 -0500, micky wrote:
It's not google's faulth that Usenet use
declined.
That's a matter of opinion.
It seems to me that Google did everything it could to destroy Usenet.
It dumped spam into many groups to the point that they became
unusable, and ignored complaints over a period of years. I may be misremembering this part, but I _think_ they used nonstandard headers
that made problems for existing Usenet clients.
And of course they made the archives unavailable, then available if
you were lucky in your searching, then unavailable again, then
available but you had to use effing Javascript, then unavailable, the available but not all groups were included, then ...
Arthur T. <arthur@munged.invalid> wrote:
In a couple of months, we may not need to filter out Google posters:
https://support.google.com/groups/answer/11036538
It doesn't say anything about Google returning the software and
connections to Dejanews. I think that's the least they could do.
micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
Arthur T. <arthur@munged.invalid> wrote:
In a couple of months, we may not need to filter out Google posters:
https://support.google.com/groups/answer/11036538
It doesn't say anything about Google returning the software and
connections to Dejanews. I think that's the least they could do.
When you no longer want your deceased dad's inheritence, you go to the >cemetary to give it back to your dead dad in his grave?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Groups#Deja_News
Once Google acquired DejaNews, DejaNews ceased to exist.
micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
https://support.google.com/groups/answer/11036538
It doesn't say anything about Google returning the software and
connections to Dejanews. I think that's the least they could do.
When you no longer want your deceased dad's inheritence, you go to the cemetary to give it back to your dead dad in his grave?
On 16.12.23 00:47, Stan Brown wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 12:13:11 -0500, micky wrote:
It's not google's faulth that Usenet use
declined.
That's a matter of opinion.
It seems to me that Google did everything it could to destroy Usenet.
It dumped spam into many groups to the point that they became
unusable, and ignored complaints over a period of years. I may be
misremembering this part, but I _think_ they used nonstandard headers
that made problems for existing Usenet clients.
Wrong and all conspiracy theory. Just a lack of support and maintenance
of an economically uninspiring service.
And of course they made the archives unavailable, then available if
you were lucky in your searching, then unavailable again, then
available but you had to use effing Javascript, then unavailable, the
available but not all groups were included, then ...
As I said: Lack of proper maintenance.
On 16.12.23 00:47, Stan Brown wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 12:13:11 -0500, micky wrote:
It's not google's faulth that Usenet use
declined.
That's a matter of opinion.
It seems to me that Google did everything it could to destroy Usenet.
It dumped spam into many groups to the point that they became
unusable, and ignored complaints over a period of years. I may be misremembering this part, but I _think_ they used nonstandard headers
that made problems for existing Usenet clients.
Wrong and all conspiracy theory. Just a lack of support and maintenance
of an economically uninspiring service.
And of course they made the archives unavailable, then available if
you were lucky in your searching, then unavailable again, then
available but you had to use effing Javascript, then unavailable, the available but not all groups were included, then ...
As I said: Lack of proper maintenance.
Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> wrote:
On 16.12.23 00:47, Stan Brown wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 12:13:11 -0500, micky wrote:
It's not google's faulth that Usenet use
declined.
That's a matter of opinion.
It seems to me that Google did everything it could to destroy Usenet.
It dumped spam into many groups to the point that they became
unusable, and ignored complaints over a period of years. I may be
misremembering this part, but I _think_ they used nonstandard headers
that made problems for existing Usenet clients.
Wrong and all conspiracy theory. Just a lack of support and maintenance
of an economically uninspiring service.
Nope, Stan is correct on all points, no conspiracy theory at all.
The spam issue is obvious and they indeed broke headers, mainly
References and Message-ID, by not honouring the NetNews mantra of "Don't >break old clients!".
And of course they made the archives unavailable, then available if
you were lucky in your searching, then unavailable again, then
available but you had to use effing Javascript, then unavailable, the
available but not all groups were included, then ...
As I said: Lack of proper maintenance.
Nope again. As Stan says, they changed/broke the search facility for
searching Usenet posts and the facility for referencing Usenet articles
by message-id several times. That they *also* maintained the service/
servers badly does not negate the points he made.
In comp.mobile.android, on 16 Dec 2023 18:47:49 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> wrote:
On 16.12.23 00:47, Stan Brown wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 12:13:11 -0500, micky wrote:
It's not google's faulth that Usenet use
declined.
That's a matter of opinion.
It seems to me that Google did everything it could to destroy Usenet.
It dumped spam into many groups to the point that they became
unusable, and ignored complaints over a period of years. I may be
misremembering this part, but I _think_ they used nonstandard headers
that made problems for existing Usenet clients.
Wrong and all conspiracy theory. Just a lack of support and maintenance
of an economically uninspiring service.
Nope, Stan is correct on all points, no conspiracy theory at all.
A basic problem here.
You are using 'conspiracy theory' to mean something that does not exist,
at the same time saying that google planned to destroy the usenet part
of groups.google. That is, by most lights, a conspiracy.
The spam issue is obvious and they indeed broke headers, mainly
References and Message-ID, by not honouring the NetNews mantra of "Don't >break old clients!".
And of course they made the archives unavailable, then available if
you were lucky in your searching, then unavailable again, then
available but you had to use effing Javascript, then unavailable, the
available but not all groups were included, then ...
As I said: Lack of proper maintenance.
Nope again. As Stan says, they changed/broke the search facility for
searching Usenet posts and the facility for referencing Usenet articles
by message-id several times. That they *also* maintained the service/ >servers badly does not negate the points he made.
micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
In comp.mobile.android, on 16 Dec 2023 18:47:49 GMT, Frank Slootweg
<this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> wrote:
On 16.12.23 00:47, Stan Brown wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 12:13:11 -0500, micky wrote:
It's not google's faulth that Usenet use
declined.
That's a matter of opinion.
It seems to me that Google did everything it could to destroy Usenet. >> >> > It dumped spam into many groups to the point that they became
unusable, and ignored complaints over a period of years. I may be
misremembering this part, but I _think_ they used nonstandard headers >> >> > that made problems for existing Usenet clients.
Wrong and all conspiracy theory. Just a lack of support and maintenance >> >> of an economically uninspiring service.
Nope, Stan is correct on all points, no conspiracy theory at all.
A basic problem here.
You are using 'conspiracy theory' to mean something that does not exist,
at the same time saying that google planned to destroy the usenet part
of groups.google. That is, by most lights, a conspiracy.
You're 'reading' things which were never written.
I didn't say Google 'planned' anything. I just agreed with what Stan
said and Stan also didn't say anything about 'planning'. Google's
actions are easily explained by incompetence, carelessness, etc., not a >'plan',
but yes, Google did those things, which is what Stan said.
[Rather offensive stuff deleted.]
The spam issue is obvious and they indeed broke headers, mainly
References and Message-ID, by not honouring the NetNews mantra of "Don't
break old clients!".
And of course they made the archives unavailable, then available if
you were lucky in your searching, then unavailable again, then
available but you had to use effing Javascript, then unavailable, the >> >> > available but not all groups were included, then ...
As I said: Lack of proper maintenance.
Nope again. As Stan says, they changed/broke the search facility for
searching Usenet posts and the facility for referencing Usenet articles
by message-id several times. That they *also* maintained the service/
servers badly does not negate the points he made.
Curious who it was offensive to? Almost every American** who reads the
news thinks there was an effort by one side or the other to steal the
last presidentail election. I purposely phrased it to not say which side
I thought was doing that. So did I offend everyone, or no one?
**If trump won, then the Democrats must have stolen it and if Biden won,
the Republicans must have been trying to steal it.
In alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent, on 17 Dec 2023 18:51:07 GMT,
Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
In comp.mobile.android, on 16 Dec 2023 18:47:49 GMT, Frank Slootweg
<this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> wrote:
On 16.12.23 00:47, Stan Brown wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 12:13:11 -0500, micky wrote:
It's not google's faulth that Usenet use
declined.
That's a matter of opinion.
It seems to me that Google did everything it could to destroy Usenet. >> >> > It dumped spam into many groups to the point that they became
unusable, and ignored complaints over a period of years. I may be
misremembering this part, but I _think_ they used nonstandard headers >> >> > that made problems for existing Usenet clients.
Wrong and all conspiracy theory. Just a lack of support and maintenance >> >> of an economically uninspiring service.
Nope, Stan is correct on all points, no conspiracy theory at all.
A basic problem here.
You are using 'conspiracy theory' to mean something that does not exist, >> at the same time saying that google planned to destroy the usenet part
of groups.google. That is, by most lights, a conspiracy.
You're 'reading' things which were never written.
I didn't say Google 'planned' anything. I just agreed with what Stan
said and Stan also didn't say anything about 'planning'. Google's
My point really had nothing to do with Google or Stan or you,
only with
the way people deride some conspiracy stories as conspiracy theories,
while the same people believe in and talk about, complain about other conspiracies*** which they do not label as theories, because they
believe in them. At the same time, some people label as conspiracy theories things that really happened.
***Whether they use the word conspiracy or not.
In this case, Stan believes in what he said and Jorg derides it by
calling it a conspiracy theory, and you deny it's a conspiracy theory,
but given the way "conspiracy theory" is used, for things that did not happen, I think not being a conspiracy theory still leaves open the possibility it was a conspiracy.
As you say, you just agreed with Stan but Stan said "It seems to me that Google did everything it could to destroy Usenet. It dumped spam into
many groups to the point that they became unusable, and ignored
complaints over a period of years...." Doing everthing it could, *it
could*, is a plan and plainly several people were involved if what Stan described happened. If there were two or more people from Google
involved, it's a conspiracy.
actions are easily explained by incompetence, carelessness, etc., not a >'plan',
You're right, no plan needed, but I think it's clear Stan thinks it was planned. But my words were not personal wrt any of you. It was just
about the use of language. I don't care if you think Google planned it
or not.
but yes, Google did those things, which is what Stan said.
[Rather offensive stuff deleted.]
Curious who it was offensive to? Almost every American** who reads the
news thinks there was an effort by one side or the other to steal the
last presidentail election. I purposely phrased it to not say which side
I thought was doing that. So did I offend everyone, or no one?
**If trump won, then the Democrats must have stolen it and if Biden won,
the Republicans must have been trying to steal it.
The actions that have been charged on both sides cannot be accounted for
by incompetence, carelessnes, laziness, etc.
(Not all the Democrats or all the Republicans but whichever it was, it
would have to be a significant number of them.)
The spam issue is obvious and they indeed broke headers, mainly
References and Message-ID, by not honouring the NetNews mantra of "Don't >> >break old clients!".
And of course they made the archives unavailable, then available if >> >> > you were lucky in your searching, then unavailable again, then
available but you had to use effing Javascript, then unavailable, the >> >> > available but not all groups were included, then ...
As I said: Lack of proper maintenance.
Nope again. As Stan says, they changed/broke the search facility for
searching Usenet posts and the facility for referencing Usenet articles >> >by message-id several times. That they *also* maintained the service/
servers badly does not negate the points he made.
micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:<snippo>
<more snippo>My point really had nothing to do with Google or Stan or you,
Then don't say "You". Quite simple. really.
You're right, no plan needed, but I think it's clear Stan thinks it was
planned. But my words were not personal wrt any of you. It was just
about the use of language. I don't care if you think Google planned it
or not.
That may well be, but I object to misrepresenting what I wrote under
the label "You". So you may not have intended your words to be personal,
but they turned out personal.
On 19 Dec 2023 13:11:50 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
wrote:
micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:<snippo>
My point really had nothing to do with Google or Stan or you,
Then don't say "You". Quite simple. really.<more snippo>
You're right, no plan needed, but I think it's clear Stan thinks it was
planned. But my words were not personal wrt any of you. It was just
about the use of language. I don't care if you think Google planned it >> or not.
That may well be, but I object to misrepresenting what I wrote under
the label "You". So you may not have intended your words to be personal, >but they turned out personal.
I often (but not often enough, I suspect) reword my own responses to
replace "you" with "one" when confusion on this point is possible.
The "you're right" is directed at you. The others may (or may not) be
more general. There are, after all, several others involved, and "you"
can be plural as well as singular.
If the shoe doesn't fit -- one don't have to wear it.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 00:18:18 |
| Calls: | 6,666 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 12,212 |
| Messages: | 5,335,392 |