On 2/2/2024 8:54 AM, max walter wrote:
Hello everyone, I am pleased to share this with us,
Us who? These SPAMMERs are really trying hard to get in those last
ditch efforts before Google Groups shuts down Usenet access.
I wonder if SPAMMERS eat crypto and bitcoin? ;)
Jill
jmcquown wrote:
On 2/2/2024 8:54 AM, max walter wrote:
Hello everyone, I am pleased to share this with us,
Us who? These SPAMMERs are really trying hard to get in those last
ditch efforts before Google Groups shuts down Usenet access.
I wonder if SPAMMERS eat crypto and bitcoin? ;)
Jill
Yeah, took time to clean the archive of it all. You'd think they'd get
a clue but they don't.
Hello everyone, I am pleased to share this with us,
On 2/2/2024 8:54 AM, max walter wrote:
Hello everyone, I am pleased to share this with us,
Us who? These SPAMMERs are really trying hard to get in those last
ditch efforts before Google Groups shuts down Usenet access.
I wonder if SPAMMERS eat crypto and bitcoin? ;)
On 2/2/2024 4:37 PM, cshenk wrote:
jmcquown wrote:
On 2/2/2024 8:54 AM, max walter wrote:
Hello everyone, I am pleased to share this with us,
Us who? These SPAMMERs are really trying hard to get in those
last ditch efforts before Google Groups shuts down Usenet access.
I wonder if SPAMMERS eat crypto and bitcoin? ;)
Jill
Yeah, took time to clean the archive of it all. You'd think they'd
get a clue but they don't.
Probably robo-generated SPAM posts. It will start bouncing back to
them as undeliverable soon enough. :)
Jill
On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 16:29:52 -0500, jmcquown <j_mcquown@comcast.net>
wrote:
On 2/2/2024 8:54 AM, max walter wrote:
Hello everyone, I am pleased to share this with us,
Us who? These SPAMMERs are really trying hard to get in those last
ditch efforts before Google Groups shuts down Usenet access.
I wonder if SPAMMERS eat crypto and bitcoin? ;)
You're talking to a spammer. Wow. Do you also do that when you receive
email from them?
jmcquown wrote:
On 2/2/2024 4:37 PM, cshenk wrote:
jmcquown wrote:
On 2/2/2024 8:54 AM, max walter wrote:
Hello everyone, I am pleased to share this with us,
Us who? These SPAMMERs are really trying hard to get in those
last ditch efforts before Google Groups shuts down Usenet access.
I wonder if SPAMMERS eat crypto and bitcoin? ;)
Jill
Yeah, took time to clean the archive of it all. You'd think they'd
get a clue but they don't.
Probably robo-generated SPAM posts. It will start bouncing back to
them as undeliverable soon enough. :)
Jill
I imagine so. A few more weeks. I will be sad to lose some of the
regulars then.
jmcquown wrote:
Probably robo-generated SPAM posts. It will start bouncing back to
them as undeliverable soon enough. :)
Jill
I imagine so. A few more weeks. I will be sad to lose some of the
regulars then.
jmcquown wrote:
On 2/2/2024 4:37 PM, cshenk wrote:
jmcquown wrote:
On 2/2/2024 8:54 AM, max walter wrote:
Hello everyone, I am pleased to share this with us,
Us who? These SPAMMERs are really trying hard to get in those
last ditch efforts before Google Groups shuts down Usenet access.
I wonder if SPAMMERS eat crypto and bitcoin? ;)
Jill
Yeah, took time to clean the archive of it all. You'd think they'd
get a clue but they don't.
Probably robo-generated SPAM posts. It will start bouncing back to
them as undeliverable soon enough. :)
Jill
I imagine so. A few more weeks. I will be sad to lose some of the
regulars then.
On 2024-02-03 4:48 p.m., cshenk wrote:
jmcquown wrote:
Probably robo-generated SPAM posts. It will start bouncing back to
them as undeliverable soon enough. :)
Jill
I imagine so. A few more weeks. I will be sad to lose some of the
regulars then.
Yeah, there are a few google trolls who you seem compelled to indulge.
On 2/3/2024 5:59 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
On 2024-02-03 4:48 p.m., cshenk wrote:I saw a recent *obvious* new troll post originating from Google Groups.
jmcquown wrote:
Probably robo-generated SPAM posts. It will start bouncing back to
them as undeliverable soon enough. :)
Jill
I imagine so. A few more weeks. I will be sad to lose some of the
regulars then.
Yeah, there are a few google trolls who you seem compelled to indulge.
On 2/3/2024 4:48 PM, cshenk wrote:
jmcquown wrote:
On 2/2/2024 4:37 PM, cshenk wrote:
jmcquown wrote:
On 2/2/2024 8:54 AM, max walter wrote:
Hello everyone, I am pleased to share this with us,
Us who? These SPAMMERs are really trying hard to get in those
last ditch efforts before Google Groups shuts down Usenet access.
I wonder if SPAMMERS eat crypto and bitcoin? ;)
Jill
Yeah, took time to clean the archive of it all. You'd think they'd
get a clue but they don't.
Probably robo-generated SPAM posts. It will start bouncing back to
them as undeliverable soon enough. :)
Jill
I imagine so. A few more weeks. I will be sad to lose some of the
regulars then.
The regulars who have anything to contribute will find other means of
access.
On 2/3/2024 5:59 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
On 2024-02-03 4:48 p.m., cshenk wrote:I saw a recent *obvious* new troll post originating from Google Groups.
jmcquown wrote:
Probably robo-generated SPAM posts. It will start bouncing back to
them as undeliverable soon enough. :)
Jill
I imagine so. A few more weeks. I will be sad to lose some of the
regulars then.
Yeah, there are a few google trolls who you seem compelled to indulge.
After it was pointed out as such, she replied she likes to "give
everyone a chance". Whatever. They spam and run.
OB Food: A pan fried catfish fillet. Dipped in egg wash, dredged in
flour & seasoned fish fry coating, yada yada; pan fried until golden and tender in a little bit of corn oil. Fresh broccoli florets steamed to
go with it.
On 2024-02-06 8:02 p.m., jmcquown wrote:
On 2/3/2024 5:59 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
On 2024-02-03 4:48 p.m., cshenk wrote:I saw a recent *obvious* new troll post originating from Google Groups.
jmcquown wrote:
Probably robo-generated SPAM posts. It will start bouncing back to >>>>> them as undeliverable soon enough. :)
Jill
I imagine so. A few more weeks. I will be sad to lose some of the
regulars then.
Yeah, there are a few google trolls who you seem compelled to indulge.
After it was pointed out as such, she replied she likes to "give
everyone a chance". Whatever. They spam and run.
Sure. I give then a chance to. If it is a new name I will look at the
post. If it is an obvious troll, into the bin they go.
Sure. I give then a chance to. If it is a new name I will look at the
post. If it is an obvious troll, into the bin they go.
The regulars who have anything to contribute will find other means of
access.
Dave Smith wrote :
Sure. I give then a chance to. If it is a new name I will look at the
post. If it is an obvious troll, into the bin they go.
I take a different approach. All googlegroupers are marked read,
except for known, wanted posters. New names are automatically marked
read. White listing works better for me.
OB Food: A pan fried catfish fillet. Dipped in egg wash, dredged in
flour & seasoned fish fry coating, yada yada; pan fried until golden
and tender in a little bit of corn oil. Fresh broccoli florets
steamed to go with it.
Jill
jmcquown wrote :
The regulars who have anything to contribute will find other means of
access.
Not many of those are still around.
On 2/7/2024 8:59 AM, heyjoe wrote:
jmcquown wrote :Sadly that's true. Occasionally one of the old regulars pop in but are
The regulars who have anything to contribute will find other means of
access.
Not many of those are still around.
no doubt not impressed by the huge amount of crap they've had to wade
through from Google. That will end soon so who knows... a few folks
might drift back. Or not.
Jill
On 2/7/2024 8:59 AM, heyjoe wrote:
jmcquown wrote :Sadly that's true. Occasionally one of the old regulars pop in but are
no doubt not impressed by the huge amount of crap they've had to wade
through from Google. That will end soon so who knows... a few folks
might drift back. Or not.
On 2/7/2024 5:12 PM, jmcquown wrote:
On 2/7/2024 8:59 AM, heyjoe wrote:
Sadly that's true. Occasionally one of the old regulars pop in but
are no doubt not impressed by the huge amount of crap they've had to
wade through from Google. That will end soon so who knows... a few
folks might drift back. Or not.
Jill
And wade through much of the crap from the regulars that are still here.
 Too much of the posts are merely to bash someone else. It is a
strange neighborhood.
jmcquown wrote:
(snipped)
OB Food: A pan fried catfish fillet. Dipped in egg wash, dredged in
flour & seasoned fish fry coating, yada yada; pan fried until golden
and tender in a little bit of corn oil. Fresh broccoli florets
steamed to go with it.
Jill
I tried something new for us. We put butter slivers on top of it with
some sea salt and black garlic. It was really good baked. It was
served with canned corn and steamed mustard leaves.
On 2/7/2024 8:59 AM, heyjoe wrote:
jmcquown wrote :Sadly that's true. Occasionally one of the old regulars pop in
The regulars who have anything to contribute will find other
means of
access.
Not many of those are still around.
but are no doubt not impressed by the huge amount of crap
they've had to wade through from Google. That will end soon so
who knows... a few folks might drift back. Or not.
Jill
On 2/7/2024 5:12 PM, jmcquown wrote:
On 2/7/2024 8:59 AM, heyjoe wrote:
jmcquown wrote :Sadly that's true. Occasionally one of the old regulars pop in but
The regulars who have anything to contribute will find other means of
access.
Not many of those are still around.
are no doubt not impressed by the huge amount of crap they've had to
wade through from Google. That will end soon so who knows... a few
folks might drift back. Or not.
Jill
And wade through much of the crap from the regulars that are still here.
 Too much of the posts are merely to bash someone else. It is a
strange neighborhood.
On 2/7/2024 5:46 PM, Ed P wrote:
On 2/7/2024 5:12 PM, jmcquown wrote:
On 2/7/2024 8:59 AM, heyjoe wrote:
jmcquown wrote :Sadly that's true. Occasionally one of the old regulars
The regulars who have anything to contribute will find
other means of
access.
Not many of those are still around.
pop in but are no doubt not impressed by the huge amount of
crap they've had to wade through from Google. That will
end soon so who knows... a few folks might drift back. Or
not.
Jill
And wade through much of the crap from the regulars that are
still here. Â Too much of the posts are merely to bash
someone else. It is a strange neighborhood.
One of the fortunate things is some of those "regular" bashers
rely on Google to get to this neighborhood.
Jill
On the flip side of that, there are a number of old regulars who most of
the sane regulars here do not want to see back.
Dave Smith wrote :
Sure. I give then a chance to. If it is a new name I will look at the
post. If it is an obvious troll, into the bin they go.
I take a different approach. All googlegroupers are marked read,
except for known, wanted posters. New names are automatically marked
read. White listing works better for me.
On 2024-02-07 5:12 p.m., jmcquown wrote:
On 2/7/2024 8:59 AM, heyjoe wrote:
jmcquown wrote :Sadly that's true. Occasionally one of the old regulars pop in but
are no doubt not impressed by the huge amount of crap they've had to
wade through from Google. That will end soon so who knows... a few
folks might drift back. Or not.
On the flip side of that, there are a number of old regulars who most of
the sane regulars here do not want to see back.
On 2/7/2024 8:59 AM, heyjoe wrote:
Dave Smith wrote :
Sure. I give then a chance to. If it is a new name I will look at the
post. If it is an obvious troll, into the bin they go.
I take a different approach. All googlegroupers are marked read,
except for known, wanted posters. New names are automatically marked
read. White listing works better for me.
but...but...
A group that doesn't welcome new-comers is destined to fail.
On 2/7/2024 8:59 AM, heyjoe wrote:
Dave Smith wrote :
Sure. I give then a chance to. If it is a new name I will look at the
post. If it is an obvious troll, into the bin they go.
I take a different approach. All googlegroupers are marked read,
except for known, wanted posters. New names are automatically marked
read. White listing works better for me.
but...but...
A group that doesn't welcome new-comers is destined to fail.
but...but...
A group that doesn't welcome new-comers is destined to fail.
On 2/7/2024 5:52 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
On 2024-02-07 5:12 p.m., jmcquown wrote:
On 2/7/2024 8:59 AM, heyjoe wrote:
jmcquown wrote :
Sadly that's true. Occasionally one of the old regulars pop in
but are no doubt not impressed by the huge amount of crap
they've had to wade through from Google. That will end soon so
who knows... a few folks might drift back. Or not.
On the flip side of that, there are a number of old regulars who
most of the sane regulars here do not want to see back.
I wouldn't call anybody here completely sane but there are a few
mean-ass babies that bitch about many things.
On 2/7/2024 8:59 AM, heyjoe wrote:
Dave Smith wrote :
Sure. I give then a chance to. If it is a new name I will look at
the post. If it is an obvious troll, into the bin they go.
I take a different approach. All googlegroupers are marked read,
except for known, wanted posters. New names are automatically
marked read. White listing works better for me.
but...but...
A group that doesn't welcome new-comers is destined to fail.
Gary wrote :
but...but...
A group that doesn't welcome new-comers is destined to fail.
If RFC is dependant on new googlegroupers, it deserves to fail. And I
don't intend to encourage them.
I see all articles, except the ones that get marked "ignore", but I
don't read the ones that are marked read. I can read them if I have
time and am so inclined, but filtering out unwanted googlegroupers
saves me time - which there isn't enough of.
As for usenet dying, it's the last bastion of free speech, with no
overlords deciding what I can or cannot read or say. Only I can
control my own behavior and I do not appreciate others trying to do it
for me.
Gary wrote:
On 2/7/2024 8:59 AM, heyjoe wrote:
Dave Smith wrote :
Sure. I give then a chance to. If it is a new name I will look at
the post. If it is an obvious troll, into the bin they go.
I take a different approach. All googlegroupers are marked read,
except for known, wanted posters. New names are automatically
marked read. White listing works better for me.
but...but...
A group that doesn't welcome new-comers is destined to fail.
Definately. I give folks a reasonable trial time.
In article
<hOOdnbHWc6jL11j4nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
cshenk@virginia-beach.net says...
Gary wrote:
On 2/7/2024 8:59 AM, heyjoe wrote:
Dave Smith wrote :
Sure. I give then a chance to. If it is a new name I will look at
the post. If it is an obvious troll, into the bin they go.
I take a different approach. All googlegroupers are marked read,
except for known, wanted posters. New names are automatically
marked read. White listing works better for me.
but...but...
A group that doesn't welcome new-comers is destined to fail.
Definately. I give folks a reasonable trial time.
then when they've proved to be foul-mouthed sex-
obsessed trolls hellbent on disrupting the group, you
carry right on encouraging them and making excuses for
them.
Janet UK
On 2/7/2024 8:59 AM, heyjoe wrote:
jmcquown wrote :Sadly that's true. Occasionally one of the old regulars pop in but are
The regulars who have anything to contribute will find other means of
access.
Not many of those are still around.
no doubt not impressed by the huge amount of crap they've had to wade
through
On 2024-02-07 5:46 p.m., Ed P wrote:
On 2/7/2024 5:12 PM, jmcquown wrote:
On 2/7/2024 8:59 AM, heyjoe wrote:
Sadly that's true. Occasionally one of the old regulars pop in but
are no doubt not impressed by the huge amount of crap they've had to
wade through from Google. That will end soon so who knows... a few
folks might drift back. Or not.
Jill
And wade through much of the crap from the regulars that are still here.
 Too much of the posts are merely to bash someone else. It is a
strange neighborhood.
Some of us have learned to use filters. There are a number of people in
my filter because they are here only to bash Kuthe
On 2024-02-08, Gary <g.majors@att.net> wrote:
On 2/7/2024 8:59 AM, heyjoe wrote:
Dave Smith wrote :
Sure. I give then a chance to. If it is a new name I will look at the
post. If it is an obvious troll, into the bin they go.
I take a different approach. All googlegroupers are marked read,
except for known, wanted posters. New names are automatically marked
read. White listing works better for me.
but...but...
A group that doesn't welcome new-comers is destined to fail.
Usenet is destined to fail, anyway. The youngsters are all
on that social media stuff.
Gary wrote :
but...but...
A group that doesn't welcome new-comers is destined to fail.
If RFC is dependant on new googlegroupers, it deserves to fail. And I
don't intend to encourage them.
I see all articles, except the ones that get marked "ignore", but I
don't read the ones that are marked read. I can read them if I have
time and am so inclined, but filtering out unwanted googlegroupers
saves me time - which there isn't enough of.
As for usenet dying, it's the last bastion of free speech, with no
overlords deciding what I can or cannot read or say. Only I can
control my own behavior and I do not appreciate others trying to do it
for me.
On 2/7/2024 5:52 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
On 2024-02-07 5:12 p.m., jmcquown wrote:I wouldn't call anybody here completely sane but there *are* a few
On 2/7/2024 8:59 AM, heyjoe wrote:
jmcquown wrote :Sadly that's true. Occasionally one of the old regulars pop in but
are no doubt not impressed by the huge amount of crap they've had to
wade through from Google. That will end soon so who knows... a few
folks might drift back. Or not.
On the flip side of that, there are a number of old regulars who most of
the sane regulars here do not want to see back.
mean-ass babies that bitch about many things.
On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 07:36:04 -0500, Gary <g.majors@att.net> wrote:
On 2/7/2024 5:52 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
On 2024-02-07 5:12 p.m., jmcquown wrote:
On 2/7/2024 8:59 AM, heyjoe wrote:
jmcquown wrote :
but >>> are no doubt not impressed by the huge amount of crap they'veSadly that's true. Occasionally one of the old regulars pop in
had to >>> wade through from Google. That will end soon so who
knows... a few >>> folks might drift back. Or not.
most of >> the sane regulars here do not want to see back.
On the flip side of that, there are a number of old regulars who
I wouldn't call anybody here completely sane but there are a few
mean-ass babies that bitch about many things.
Gary, have you been released from jail?
Bruce wrote:
On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 07:36:04 -0500, Gary <g.majors@att.net> wrote:
On 2/7/2024 5:52 PM, Dave Smith wrote:but >>> are no doubt not impressed by the huge amount of crap they've
On 2024-02-07 5:12 p.m., jmcquown wrote:
On 2/7/2024 8:59 AM, heyjoe wrote:
jmcquown wrote :Sadly that's true. Occasionally one of the old regulars pop in
had to >>> wade through from Google. That will end soon so who
knows... a few >>> folks might drift back. Or not.
most of >> the sane regulars here do not want to see back.
On the flip side of that, there are a number of old regulars who
I wouldn't call anybody here completely sane but there are a few
mean-ass babies that bitch about many things.
Gary, have you been released from jail?
He's just been posting less.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 13:39:36 |
| Calls: | 6,667 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,214 |
| Messages: | 5,336,513 |