By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
424,647 Members | 1,643 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 424,647 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Moving to new form of usenet ideas?

P: n/a
Sorry for all the cross posting but I'm interesting in getting a serious
discussion about how usenet has become lately.

Many people are moving away from usenet because of all the spam and cooks
that have been showing up. The rate of spammer seem to be growing
exponentially(ok, not really but it feels like it).

I think maybe its time to do something about it. What I'd like to see happen
is an "upgrade" to usenet. I do not like th forum based communiations that
has sprung up lately but since it solves many of usenet's shortcommings I
believe that will will take over.

If many people feel the same way then maybe we can move on to something
better and increase the efficiency and productivity that usenet was meant
for.

Some ideas I have are:

1. Cook repellent - Some method to prevent cooks from interrupting normal
flow. Either having a voting scheme or some type of identifying means to
either completely remove them or at least make it easier to avoid them.

2. Spam repellent - Similar to Cooks.

3. Meta data - Have the ability to directly include graphics and things like
TeX into messages. For those that do not want to view it they can disable it
or have some other means to see it.

4. Specific tools for groups - Different groups have different needs for
communication. Mathematics groups need to efficiently communicate
mathematical formulas while electronics need to communicate schematics.

5. Moderation - Potentially give regular users of the group the ability to
"quasi-moderate" or in general just have a wide range of options to have
more control over groups(But not to much).

6. Non-anomality or some way to slow down spammers. Maybe better routing
data and such.

7. Potentially "Backwards compatible" with usenet - have the ability to surf
usenet with the same client to help make a smoother transition.
----

In any case this is extremely preliminary and just some thoughts. It seems
that usenet has started to go down the drain. Hopefully there are those out
there that are interested in keeping it alive. I'm thinking something very
similar to usenet but with just more "features".

If enough people are interested in doing this then maybe we can put
something together. All ideas and suggestions are welcome.

Thanks,
Jon
Oct 8 '07 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
224 Replies


P: n/a
On Oct 8, 3:13 pm, "Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Slaugh...@Hotmail.comwrote:
Sorry for all the cross posting but I'm interesting in getting a serious
discussion about how usenet has become lately.
Usenet is usenet. What you want is a discussion forum. There are
plenty
of implementations available freely that you may modify to suit your
needs.

Please, don't cross-post to unrelated newsgroups and understand that
you are currently part of this "spam" category. Time to use this
"spam-repellent" on yourself.
Jonathan

Oct 8 '07 #2

P: n/a

"Jonathan Mcdougall" <jo***************@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@19g2000hsx.googlegro ups.com...
On Oct 8, 3:13 pm, "Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Slaugh...@Hotmail.comwrote:
>Sorry for all the cross posting but I'm interesting in getting a serious
discussion about how usenet has become lately.

Usenet is usenet. What you want is a discussion forum. There are
plenty
of implementations available freely that you may modify to suit your
needs.
I'm trying to see if the community is interested in moving into something
better.
Please, don't cross-post to unrelated newsgroups and understand that
you are currently part of this "spam" category. Time to use this
"spam-repellent" on yourself.

Hmm... But yet its ok for you to do it? I knew someone would say such a
thing but I guess you rather me post individually to each group?

Fortunately there is a difference between what I posted and spam. I do not
in general post to multiple groups and I am not posting an irrelevant
message or trying to sell a product or waste peoples time. What I am asking
is relevant to all those that use usenet. It is a serious question please
respond with a serious answer.

And hell, if you hate cross posting then please don't do it yourself.... it
makes you look like a hypocrit.

Oct 8 '07 #3

P: n/a
Fortunately there is a difference between what I posted and spam. I do
not in general post to multiple groups and I am not posting an irrelevant
message or trying to sell a product or waste peoples time. What I am
asking is relevant to all those that use usenet. It is a serious question
please respond with a serious answer.
Don't get me wrong though. Maybe I am the only one concerned here and maybe
I am wasting everyone's time... but compared to rest of the spam thats a
chance I'm willing to take.
Oct 8 '07 #4

P: n/a
On 2007-10-08 13:54, Jon Slaughter wrote:
"Jonathan Mcdougall" <jo***************@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@19g2000hsx.googlegro ups.com...
>On Oct 8, 3:13 pm, "Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Slaugh...@Hotmail.comwrote:
>>Sorry for all the cross posting but I'm interesting in getting a serious
discussion about how usenet has become lately.

Usenet is usenet. What you want is a discussion forum. There are
plenty
of implementations available freely that you may modify to suit your
needs.

I'm trying to see if the community is interested in moving into something
better.
Most of us using the groups you have posted to are what people would
call tech-savvy, if we did not consider usenet good enough when weighing
all the pros and cons compared with the alternatives we would have moved
to something "better" long ago.
>Please, don't cross-post to unrelated newsgroups and understand that
you are currently part of this "spam" category. Time to use this
"spam-repellent" on yourself.
Hmm... But yet its ok for you to do it? I knew someone would say such a
thing but I guess you rather me post individually to each group?
A necessary evil in his case, and multiposting is even worse than cross-
posting.
Fortunately there is a difference between what I posted and spam. I do not
in general post to multiple groups and I am not posting an irrelevant
message or trying to sell a product or waste peoples time. What I am asking
is relevant to all those that use usenet. It is a serious question please
respond with a serious answer.
The most common definition of SPAM that I have seen is undesired mail/
messages, and yours fall in that category. You claim that your post is
relevant to comp.lang.c++ but I can not see anything in your post that
have anything to do with C++.

In my experience the biggest problem with usenet is not traditional SPAM
(maybe because my newsserver have a good SPAM filter, what do I know)
but rather the many irrelevant posts. Few of those are made with any
"ill" intent (often it is just people who do not know any better) but
they still lowers the signal to noise ratio.

For those who can not stand some noise every now and then there are the
moderated groups like comp.lang.c++.moderated, but they you will also
have to live with the consequences of posing in a moderated newsgroup.

--
Erik Wikström
Oct 8 '07 #5

P: n/a
Jon Slaughter wrote:
Sorry for all the cross posting but I'm interesting in getting a serious
discussion about how usenet has become lately.

Many people are moving away from usenet because of all the spam and cooks
that have been showing up. The rate of spammer seem to be growing
exponentially(ok, not really but it feels like it).

I think maybe its time to do something about it. What I'd like to see happen
is an "upgrade" to usenet. I do not like th forum based communiations that
has sprung up lately but since it solves many of usenet's shortcommings I
believe that will will take over.

If many people feel the same way then maybe we can move on to something
better and increase the efficiency and productivity that usenet was meant
for.

Some ideas I have are:

1. Cook repellent - Some method to prevent cooks from interrupting normal
flow. Either having a voting scheme or some type of identifying means to
either completely remove them or at least make it easier to avoid them.
I'd be in favor of that, to a degree. If you get a bad cook, simply
sending the meal back won't solve the problem.
>
2. Spam repellent - Similar to Cooks.
The worst would be cooks who prepare Spam. Though Spam is very
popular in some places (I understand that Hawaiians consume more
Spam than any other state in the US), I've never known a cook
who can prepare it well.

<snip>
Apologies in advance for waste of bandwidth,

Rick
Oct 8 '07 #6

P: n/a
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 08:32:57 -0400, Rick Decker <rd*****@hamilton.edu>
wrote:
>Jon Slaughter wrote:
>Sorry for all the cross posting but I'm interesting in getting a serious
discussion about how usenet has become lately.

Many people are moving away from usenet because of all the spam and cooks
that have been showing up. The rate of spammer seem to be growing
exponentially(ok, not really but it feels like it).

I think maybe its time to do something about it. What I'd like to see happen
is an "upgrade" to usenet. I do not like th forum based communiations that
has sprung up lately but since it solves many of usenet's shortcommings I
believe that will will take over.

If many people feel the same way then maybe we can move on to something
better and increase the efficiency and productivity that usenet was meant
for.

Some ideas I have are:

1. Cook repellent - Some method to prevent cooks from interrupting normal
flow. Either having a voting scheme or some type of identifying means to
either completely remove them or at least make it easier to avoid them.

I'd be in favor of that, to a degree. If you get a bad cook, simply
sending the meal back won't solve the problem.
I can't remember ever getting a bad idea from a cook. Whereas I've
gotten plenty from sacred cows.
>2. Spam repellent - Similar to Cooks.

The worst would be cooks who prepare Spam. Though Spam is very
popular in some places (I understand that Hawaiians consume more
Spam than any other state in the US), I've never known a cook
who can prepare it well.
I believe Spam was invented by Capt. James Cook. Possibly apochryphal.
I don't know who invented sacred cows. Possibly bad cooks.
>Apologies in advance for waste of bandwidth,
Not so far.

~v~~
Oct 8 '07 #7

P: n/a
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 06:13:39 -0500, "Jon Slaughter"
<Jo***********@Hotmail.comwrote:
>Sorry for all the cross posting but I'm interesting in getting a serious
discussion about how usenet has become lately.

Many people are moving away from usenet because of all the spam and cooks
that have been showing up.
Really, you should try some of my bean recipes.

John
Oct 8 '07 #8

P: n/a
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 06:13:39 -0500, "Jon Slaughter"
<Jo***********@Hotmail.comwrote:
>Sorry for all the cross posting but I'm interesting in getting a serious
discussion about how usenet has become lately.

Many people are moving away from usenet because of all the spam and cooks
that have been showing up. The rate of spammer seem to be growing
exponentially(ok, not really but it feels like it).
I see very little spam on sed, maybe because I use Supernews.

You can ignore the kooks or play with them. Sometimes it's interesting
to research their obscessions. You can learn a lot about H2O2 or PV
solar or bogus audio stuff.

But what's this Mika Lalonde stuff? It seems to keep evading my kill
filters.

>5. Moderation - Potentially give regular users of the group the ability to
"quasi-moderate" or in general just have a wide range of options to have
more control over groups(But not to much).
Moderated groups tend to be dull or totally dead. The cure is worse
than the disease.

John
Oct 8 '07 #9

P: n/a
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 06:13:39 -0500, "Jon Slaughter"
<Jo***********@Hotmail.comwrote:
>Sorry for all the cross posting but I'm interesting in getting a serious
discussion about how usenet has become lately.

Many people are moving away from usenet because of all the spam and cooks
that have been showing up. The rate of spammer seem to be growing
exponentially(ok, not really but it feels like it).
[sip]

I like the wild wild west feel of usenet. Raw, unmoderated and free :)
Yeeee hahhhhh....bang bang bang
D from BC
Oct 8 '07 #10

P: n/a
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 11:56:39 +0000, Jon Slaughter wrote:
>Fortunately there is a difference between what I posted and spam. I do
not in general post to multiple groups and I am not posting an
irrelevant message or trying to sell a product or waste peoples time.
What I am asking is relevant to all those that use usenet. It is a
serious question please respond with a serious answer.

Don't get me wrong though. Maybe I am the only one concerned here and
maybe I am wasting everyone's time... but compared to rest of the spam
thats a chance I'm willing to take.
Well, FWIW, there's these:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...sion+groups%22

Good Luck!
Rich
Oct 8 '07 #11

P: n/a
Rick Decker wrote:
>
Jon Slaughter wrote:
Sorry for all the cross posting but I'm interesting in getting a serious
discussion about how usenet has become lately.

Many people are moving away from usenet because of all the spam and cooks
that have been showing up. The rate of spammer seem to be growing
exponentially(ok, not really but it feels like it).

I think maybe its time to do something about it. What I'd like to see happen
is an "upgrade" to usenet. I do not like th forum based communiations that
has sprung up lately but since it solves many of usenet's shortcommings I
believe that will will take over.

If many people feel the same way then maybe we can move on to something
better and increase the efficiency and productivity that usenet was meant
for.

Some ideas I have are:

1. Cook repellent - Some method to prevent cooks from interrupting normal
flow. Either having a voting scheme or some type of identifying means to
either completely remove them or at least make it easier to avoid them.

I'd be in favor of that, to a degree. If you get a bad cook, simply
sending the meal back won't solve the problem.

2. Spam repellent - Similar to Cooks.

The worst would be cooks who prepare Spam. Though Spam is very
popular in some places (I understand that Hawaiians consume more
Spam than any other state in the US), I've never known a cook
who can prepare it well.

Prepare it? You rip off the lid and either use a fork to eat it out
of the can, or slice it and make sandwiches. Only wimps need to
'prepare it'. Soldiers during WWII didn't need it 'prepared', and if it
was good enough for them, it should be plenty good enough for you!
<snip>

Apologies in advance for waste of bandwidth,

Rick
http://www.spam.com/whatisspam/

--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
Oct 8 '07 #12

P: n/a
D from BC wrote:
>
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 06:13:39 -0500, "Jon Slaughter"
<Jo***********@Hotmail.comwrote:
Sorry for all the cross posting but I'm interesting in getting a serious
discussion about how usenet has become lately.

Many people are moving away from usenet because of all the spam and cooks
that have been showing up. The rate of spammer seem to be growing
exponentially(ok, not really but it feels like it).
[sip]

I like the wild wild west feel of usenet. Raw, unmoderated and free :)
Yeeee hahhhhh....bang bang bang

D from BC

Stop blowing up all those electrolytics! Do you have ANY idea how
hard it is to clean that crap off the ceiling?
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
Oct 8 '07 #13

P: n/a
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Rick Decker wrote:
>Jon Slaughter wrote:
>>Sorry for all the cross posting but I'm interesting in getting a serious
discussion about how usenet has become lately.

Many people are moving away from usenet because of all the spam and cooks
that have been showing up. The rate of spammer seem to be growing
exponentially(ok, not really but it feels like it).

I think maybe its time to do something about it. What I'd like to see happen
is an "upgrade" to usenet. I do not like th forum based communiations that
has sprung up lately but since it solves many of usenet's shortcommings I
believe that will will take over.

If many people feel the same way then maybe we can move on to something
better and increase the efficiency and productivity that usenet was meant
for.

Some ideas I have are:

1. Cook repellent - Some method to prevent cooks from interrupting normal
flow. Either having a voting scheme or some type of identifying means to
either completely remove them or at least make it easier to avoid them.
I'd be in favor of that, to a degree. If you get a bad cook, simply
sending the meal back won't solve the problem.
>>2. Spam repellent - Similar to Cooks.
The worst would be cooks who prepare Spam. Though Spam is very
popular in some places (I understand that Hawaiians consume more
Spam than any other state in the US), I've never known a cook
who can prepare it well.


Prepare it? You rip off the lid and either use a fork to eat it out
of the can, or slice it and make sandwiches. Only wimps need to
'prepare it'. Soldiers during WWII didn't need it 'prepared', and if it
was good enough for them, it should be plenty good enough for you!
Heh. I did a lot of things in the Army that I (happily) haven't
done since.
Regards,

Rick
Oct 8 '07 #14

P: n/a

"John Larkin" <jj******@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.comwrote in message
news:1e********************************@4ax.com...
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 06:13:39 -0500, "Jon Slaughter"
<Jo***********@Hotmail.comwrote:
>>Sorry for all the cross posting but I'm interesting in getting a serious
discussion about how usenet has become lately.

Many people are moving away from usenet because of all the spam and cooks
that have been showing up.

Really, you should try some of my bean recipes.
Lol... shit. It as 4AM and I've been up all night. kook... cook... kook...
there to close to tell at 4AM ;/
Oct 8 '07 #15

P: n/a

"John Larkin" <jj******@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.comwrote in message
news:b0********************************@4ax.com...
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 06:13:39 -0500, "Jon Slaughter"
<Jo***********@Hotmail.comwrote:
>>Sorry for all the cross posting but I'm interesting in getting a serious
discussion about how usenet has become lately.

Many people are moving away from usenet because of all the spam and cooks
that have been showing up. The rate of spammer seem to be growing
exponentially(ok, not really but it feels like it).

I see very little spam on sed, maybe because I use Supernews.

You can ignore the kooks or play with them. Sometimes it's interesting
to research their obscessions. You can learn a lot about H2O2 or PV
solar or bogus audio stuff.

But what's this Mika Lalonde stuff? It seems to keep evading my kill
filters.
Maybe I don't use my filters properly but in any case its ridiculous. About
1 out of every 8 OT's in sci.electronics.basics is spam. I get tired of
blocking these.

Sci.Math has been flooded with the same spam but also about 1 out of every
100 posts(which is significant because Sci.Math is pretty active) is someone
asking for a solutions manual.

It will only get worse and I just think that nipping the problems in the bud
is the best solution instead of waiting until their full blown.
>
>>5. Moderation - Potentially give regular users of the group the ability to
"quasi-moderate" or in general just have a wide range of options to have
more control over groups(But not to much).

Moderated groups tend to be dull or totally dead. The cure is worse
than the disease.
Yes, I have noticed. That is why some type of self moderating idea would
work better. That is, by keeping track of the regular users(the hard part
then is spoofing problems) then it would allow them to vote on some of the
problems that moderation is suppose to solve.

Maybe not the best method but just an idea. I'm sure there are better ones.
Point was to bring up the issues to get a discussion about it and get the
ideas flowing to improve on something. A lot of people seem to have taken
offense to this.
Oct 8 '07 #16

P: n/a
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Rick Decker wrote:
The worst would be cooks who prepare Spam. Though Spam is very
popular in some places (I understand that Hawaiians consume more
Spam than any other state in the US), I've never known a cook
who can prepare it well.


Prepare it? You rip off the lid and either use a fork to eat it
out of the can, or slice it and make sandwiches. Only wimps need to
'prepare it'. Soldiers during WWII didn't need it 'prepared', and if
it was good enough for them, it should be plenty good enough for you!
Yeah, and LOT of those guys are dead now. Coincidence? I think not.

Brian
Oct 8 '07 #17

P: n/a
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 14:50:12 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
>Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Never happened to me or anyone else of course.

~v~~
Oct 8 '07 #18

P: n/a
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 20:34:24 GMT, "Jon Slaughter"
<Jo***********@Hotmail.comwrote:
>
"John Larkin" <jj******@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.comwrote in message
news:b0********************************@4ax.com.. .
>On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 06:13:39 -0500, "Jon Slaughter"
<Jo***********@Hotmail.comwrote:
>>>Sorry for all the cross posting but I'm interesting in getting a serious
discussion about how usenet has become lately.

Many people are moving away from usenet because of all the spam and cooks
that have been showing up. The rate of spammer seem to be growing
exponentially(ok, not really but it feels like it).

I see very little spam on sed, maybe because I use Supernews.

You can ignore the kooks or play with them. Sometimes it's interesting
to research their obscessions. You can learn a lot about H2O2 or PV
solar or bogus audio stuff.

But what's this Mika Lalonde stuff? It seems to keep evading my kill
filters.

Maybe I don't use my filters properly but in any case its ridiculous. About
1 out of every 8 OT's in sci.electronics.basics is spam. I get tired of
blocking these.
Quite possibly the group itself is spam.
>Sci.Math has been flooded with the same spam but also about 1 out of every
100 posts(which is significant because Sci.Math is pretty active) is someone
asking for a solutions manual.

It will only get worse and I just think that nipping the problems in the bud
is the best solution instead of waiting until their full blown.
It's good to know the problem itself isn't already full blown.
>>>5. Moderation - Potentially give regular users of the group the ability to
"quasi-moderate" or in general just have a wide range of options to have
more control over groups(But not to much).

Moderated groups tend to be dull or totally dead. The cure is worse
than the disease.

Yes, I have noticed. That is why some type of self moderating idea would
work better.
I always thought freedom of speech was self moderating. I guess not.
That is, by keeping track of the regular users(the hard part
then is spoofing problems) then it would allow them to vote on some of the
problems that moderation is suppose to solve.
Majority logic? I love it.
>Maybe not the best method but just an idea. I'm sure there are better ones.
So are we.
>Point was to bring up the issues to get a discussion about it and get the
ideas flowing to improve on something. A lot of people seem to have taken
offense to this.
Quite often I take offense to assholes pontificating about what others
should be allowed to discuss.

~v~~
Oct 8 '07 #19

P: n/a
On Oct 8, 2:23 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.netwrote:
Quite often I take offense to assholes pontificating about what others
should be allowed to discuss.
that is also a weakness i have
which i end up pontificating about
fueling a vicious cycle...

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar

Oct 8 '07 #20

P: n/a
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 20:34:24 GMT, "Jon Slaughter"
<Jo***********@Hotmail.comwrote:
>
"John Larkin" <jj******@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.comwrote in message
news:b0********************************@4ax.com.. .
>On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 06:13:39 -0500, "Jon Slaughter"
<Jo***********@Hotmail.comwrote:
Maybe I don't use my filters properly but in any case its ridiculous. About
1 out of every 8 OT's in sci.electronics.basics is spam. I get tired of
blocking these.

Sci.Math has been flooded with the same spam but also about 1 out of every
100 posts(which is significant because Sci.Math is pretty active) is someone
asking for a solutions manual.

It will only get worse and I just think that nipping the problems in the bud
is the best solution instead of waiting until their full blown.
It's the same problem as with email, which is largely solved, for
those who care, by filters in servers and client software. This
could be done completely independently of any protocol or user
behavior in usenet. It would, however, require an investment by
_somebody_, likely the ISPs, but since usenet is so lightly used
compared to email I wouldn't hold my breath.

Again, if you want people to take you seriously or get behind you,
have a proposal that makes sense that provides a genuine means to get
you (and a lot of others) something of benefit. Just showing up,
spamming a bunch of disinterested newsgroups with an OT message, and
complaining without any apparent clue of how to solve the stated
problem is just going to, well, just has, annoy people.

>Moderated groups tend to be dull or totally dead. The cure is worse
than the disease.
Yes, I have noticed. That is why some type of self moderating idea would
work better. That is, by keeping track of the regular users(the hard part
then is spoofing problems) then it would allow them to vote on some of the
problems that moderation is suppose to solve.
That's a death-knell for usenet. The beauty of usenet is that most
groups are unmoderated and belong to no-one. If you want a moderated
forum there are web-apps for that or discussion groups that already
exist. Why take away the big benefit of usenet to make it just like
everything else that has popped up?

Who picks your "self-moderators"? How much authority do they have?
How do you police the moderators? It sounds like a way to create
another Wikipedia-like disaster.
>Maybe not the best method but just an idea. I'm sure there are better ones.
Point was to bring up the issues to get a discussion about it and get the
ideas flowing to improve on something. A lot of people seem to have taken
offense to this.
You've gotten the discussion going. You should listen to the
responses rather than discounting them.

Eric Jacobsen
Minister of Algorithms
Abineau Communications
http://www.ericjacobsen.org
Oct 8 '07 #21

P: n/a
Lester Zick wrote:
>
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 14:50:12 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.

Never happened to me or anyone else of course.

Sigh. So many idiots, so little time. The sig file is used to
remind an online stalker that he hasn't managed to interfere with my
volunteer work to help other disabled veterans. Take it any way you
want to.
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
Oct 9 '07 #22

P: n/a
Default User wrote:
>
Yeah, and LOT of those guys are dead now. Coincidence? I think not.

Yeah, old age kills a LOT of people. Around here, its over 200
Veterans, every 90 days.
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
Oct 9 '07 #23

P: n/a
Rick Decker wrote:
>
Heh. I did a lot of things in the Army that I (happily) haven't
done since.

Spam is better than the C rations, K rations or MREs I've tried.

As far as what i did in the service? I was a broadcast engineer for
AFRTS.
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
Oct 9 '07 #24

P: n/a
Lester Zick wrote:
>

I always thought freedom of speech was self moderating. I guess not.

Maybe the group you are posting from will be hit with over 50,000 bot
posts in one day, the next time around. it really plugged up SED for a
while. it took me about a half hour to downlad the headers and delete
them, to find the 50 or so real posts that morning, but I'm on
broadbnd. the dialup guys weren't so lucky.
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
Oct 9 '07 #25

P: n/a
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 06:16:00 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
>On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 08:32:57 -0400, Rick Decker <rd*****@hamilton.edu>
wrote:
>>Jon Slaughter wrote:
>>Sorry for all the cross posting but I'm interesting in getting a serious
discussion about how usenet has become lately.

Many people are moving away from usenet because of all the spam and cooks
that have been showing up. The rate of spammer seem to be growing
exponentially(ok, not really but it feels like it).

I think maybe its time to do something about it. What I'd like to see happen
is an "upgrade" to usenet. I do not like th forum based communiations that
has sprung up lately but since it solves many of usenet's shortcommings I
believe that will will take over.

If many people feel the same way then maybe we can move on to something
better and increase the efficiency and productivity that usenet was meant
for.

Some ideas I have are:

1. Cook repellent - Some method to prevent cooks from interrupting normal
flow. Either having a voting scheme or some type of identifying means to
either completely remove them or at least make it easier to avoid them.

I'd be in favor of that, to a degree. If you get a bad cook, simply
sending the meal back won't solve the problem.

I can't remember ever getting a bad idea from a cook. Whereas I've
gotten plenty from sacred cows.
>>2. Spam repellent - Similar to Cooks.

The worst would be cooks who prepare Spam. Though Spam is very
popular in some places (I understand that Hawaiians consume more
Spam than any other state in the US), I've never known a cook
who can prepare it well.

I believe Spam was invented by Capt. James Cook.
---
Nope.

http://www.spam.com/
---
>Possibly apochryphal.
I don't know who invented sacred cows.
---
The Indian Indians.
---
>Possibly bad cooks.
---
Hardly. Try a nice lamb vindaloo sometime...
--
JF
Oct 9 '07 #26

P: n/a
me
"Michael A. Terrell" <mi**********@earthlink.netwrote in
news:47***************@earthlink.net:
>Default User wrote:
>>
Yeah, and LOT of those guys are dead now. Coincidence? I think not.


Yeah, old age kills a LOT of people.
I think it gets everyone ...
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Oct 9 '07 #27

P: n/a
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 19:24:11 -0500, me <me@here.netwrote:
>"Michael A. Terrell" <mi**********@earthlink.netwrote in
news:47***************@earthlink.net:
>>Default User wrote:
>>>
Yeah, and LOT of those guys are dead now. Coincidence? I think not.


Yeah, old age kills a LOT of people.

I think it gets everyone ...
---
Well, maybe not, but the ones it doesn't get have to keep moving...
--
JF
Oct 9 '07 #28

P: n/a
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 20:05:32 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
>Lester Zick wrote:
>>

I always thought freedom of speech was self moderating. I guess not.


Maybe the group you are posting from will be hit with over 50,000 bot
posts in one day, the next time around. it really plugged up SED for a
while. it took me about a half hour to downlad the headers and delete
them, to find the 50 or so real posts that morning, but I'm on
broadbnd. the dialup guys weren't so lucky.
I never saw them. Supernews must have zapped them first.

John

Oct 9 '07 #29

P: n/a
Eric Jacobsen wrote:
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 20:34:24 GMT, "Jon Slaughter"
<Jo***********@Hotmail.comwrote:

>>"John Larkin" <jj******@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.comwrote in message
news:b0********************************@4ax.com. ..
>>>On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 06:13:39 -0500, "Jon Slaughter"
<Jo***********@Hotmail.comwrote:

Maybe I don't use my filters properly but in any case its ridiculous. About
1 out of every 8 OT's in sci.electronics.basics is spam. I get tired of
blocking these.

Sci.Math has been flooded with the same spam but also about 1 out of every
100 posts(which is significant because Sci.Math is pretty active) is someone
asking for a solutions manual.

It will only get worse and I just think that nipping the problems in the bud
is the best solution instead of waiting until their full blown.


It's the same problem as with email, which is largely solved, for
those who care, by filters in servers and client software. This
could be done completely independently of any protocol or user
behavior in usenet. It would, however, require an investment by
_somebody_, likely the ISPs, but since usenet is so lightly used
compared to email I wouldn't hold my breath.

Again, if you want people to take you seriously or get behind you,
have a proposal that makes sense that provides a genuine means to get
you (and a lot of others) something of benefit. Just showing up,
spamming a bunch of disinterested newsgroups with an OT message, and
complaining without any apparent clue of how to solve the stated
problem is just going to, well, just has, annoy people.
>>>Moderated groups tend to be dull or totally dead. The cure is worse
than the disease.

Yes, I have noticed. That is why some type of self moderating idea would
work better. That is, by keeping track of the regular users(the hard part
then is spoofing problems) then it would allow them to vote on some of the
problems that moderation is suppose to solve.


That's a death-knell for usenet. The beauty of usenet is that most
groups are unmoderated and belong to no-one. If you want a moderated
forum there are web-apps for that or discussion groups that already
exist. Why take away the big benefit of usenet to make it just like
everything else that has popped up?

Who picks your "self-moderators"? How much authority do they have?
How do you police the moderators? It sounds like a way to create
another Wikipedia-like disaster.

>>Maybe not the best method but just an idea. I'm sure there are better ones.
Point was to bring up the issues to get a discussion about it and get the
ideas flowing to improve on something. A lot of people seem to have taken
offense to this.


You've gotten the discussion going. You should listen to the
responses rather than discounting them.

Eric Jacobsen
Minister of Algorithms
Abineau Communications
http://www.ericjacobsen.org
The solution is PIOEP (Poison ivy over Ethernet Protocol).
Absolutely guaranteed to instantly eliminate any and all undesirable
emails, spam, and newsgroup posts.

See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/psnt.pdf , example 5

--
Many thanks,

Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: do*@tinaja.com

Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
Oct 9 '07 #30

P: n/a
John Larkin wrote:
>
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 20:05:32 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
Lester Zick wrote:
>

I always thought freedom of speech was self moderating. I guess not.

Maybe the group you are posting from will be hit with over 50,000 bot
posts in one day, the next time around. it really plugged up SED for a
while. it took me about a half hour to downlad the headers and delete
them, to find the 50 or so real posts that morning, but I'm on
broadbnd. the dialup guys weren't so lucky.

I never saw them. Supernews must have zapped them first.

They did. Earthlink hadn't changed over to Supernews at that point.
I see very little spam, since the change over.

--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
Oct 9 '07 #31

P: n/a
ChairmanOfTheBored wrote:
>
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 15:12:11 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:

Stop blowing up all those electrolytics! Do you have ANY idea how
hard it is to clean that crap off the ceiling?

That must be what happened to your brain... errr your jaw... errr...
both!

It's all clear now. We all now know why you act so retarded.

Cap Paste!

You don't know ANYTHING. You are the jackoff all trades, the
masterbater of nome.
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
Oct 9 '07 #32

P: n/a
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 18:02:16 -0700, "Herbert John \"Jackie\" Gleason"
<Bu************@Texarkanacops.govwrote:
>On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 14:23:42 -0700, Lester Zick <do********@nowhere.net>
wrote:
>>>It will only get worse and I just think that nipping the problems in the bud
is the best solution instead of waiting until their full blown.

It's good to know the problem itself isn't already full blown.


They guy has a severe problem with the word "they're" in several
^^^^^^^^
>locations in this thread alone.

They guy?

Funny.

John
Oct 9 '07 #33

P: n/a
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 23:33:12 -0700, ChairmanOfTheBored
<RU*****@crackasmile.orgwrote:
>On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 19:55:28 -0700, John Larkin
<jj******@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.comwrot e:
>>On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 18:02:16 -0700, "Herbert John \"Jackie\" Gleason"
<Bu************@Texarkanacops.govwrote:
>>>On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 14:23:42 -0700, Lester Zick <do********@nowhere.net>
wrote:

>It will only get worse and I just think that nipping the problems in the bud
>is the best solution instead of waiting until their full blown.

It's good to know the problem itself isn't already full blown.
They guy has a severe problem with the word "they're" in several
^^^^^^^^
>>>locations in this thread alone.


They guy?

Funny.

John
Typo, dipshit. You... retarded.
SAT 1520. How did you do?

John

Oct 9 '07 #34

P: n/a


John Larkin wrote:
>
SAT 1520. How did you do?

John
It shows; 80 points shy of perfect, what an incapable dolt:-))

Oct 9 '07 #35

P: n/a
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 10:19:37 -0400, Fred Bloggs <no****@nospam.com>
wrote:
>

John Larkin wrote:
>>
SAT 1520. How did you do?

John

It shows; 80 points shy of perfect, what an incapable dolt:-))
Well, all that verbal stuff confuses me.

John

Oct 9 '07 #36

P: n/a
ChairmanOfTheBored wrote:
On 8 Oct 2007 21:01:53 GMT, "Default User" <de***********@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Prepare it? You rip off the lid and either use a fork to eat it
out of the can, or slice it and make sandwiches. Only wimps need
to >'prepare it'. Soldiers during WWII didn't need it 'prepared',
and if >it was good enough for them, it should be plenty good
enough for you!

Yeah, and LOT of those guys are dead now. Coincidence? I think not.

Considering that they would be well into their nineties by now...

You're an Idiot. Coincidence? I KNOW not!

Most of them lived longer than any generations of homo sapiens going
in the last several centuries.
*whoooooooooooooooooosh*
You're just another Usenet retard.
Got a mirror handy?


Brian
Oct 9 '07 #37

P: n/a
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 19:59:05 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
>Lester Zick wrote:
>>
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 14:50:12 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
>Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.

Never happened to me or anyone else of course.


Sigh. So many idiots, so little time.
Part of your service to the country no doubt.
The sig file is used to
remind an online stalker that he hasn't managed to interfere with my
volunteer work to help other disabled veterans. Take it any way you
want to.
A lot of us have been there. That doesn't qualify us as idiots.
Fortunately relatively few were disabled. I was just trying to
understand how you think that bears on issues raised here.

~v~~
Oct 9 '07 #38

P: n/a
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 19:24:27 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 06:16:00 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
>>On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 08:32:57 -0400, Rick Decker <rd*****@hamilton.edu>
wrote:
>>>Jon Slaughter wrote:
Sorry for all the cross posting but I'm interesting in getting a serious
discussion about how usenet has become lately.

Many people are moving away from usenet because of all the spam and cooks
that have been showing up. The rate of spammer seem to be growing
exponentially(ok, not really but it feels like it).

I think maybe its time to do something about it. What I'd like to see happen
is an "upgrade" to usenet. I do not like th forum based communiations that
has sprung up lately but since it solves many of usenet's shortcommings I
believe that will will take over.

If many people feel the same way then maybe we can move on to something
better and increase the efficiency and productivity that usenet was meant
for.

Some ideas I have are:

1. Cook repellent - Some method to prevent cooks from interrupting normal
flow. Either having a voting scheme or some type of identifying means to
either completely remove them or at least make it easier to avoid them.

I'd be in favor of that, to a degree. If you get a bad cook, simply
sending the meal back won't solve the problem.

I can't remember ever getting a bad idea from a cook. Whereas I've
gotten plenty from sacred cows.
>>>2. Spam repellent - Similar to Cooks.

The worst would be cooks who prepare Spam. Though Spam is very
popular in some places (I understand that Hawaiians consume more
Spam than any other state in the US), I've never known a cook
who can prepare it well.

I believe Spam was invented by Capt. James Cook.

---
Nope.
Oh no! Are you sure? I mean you wouldn't just be citing some web
loony, would you?
>http://www.spam.com/
---
>>Possibly apochryphal.
I don't know who invented sacred cows.

---
The Indian Indians.
Ya think?
>>Possibly bad cooks.

---
Hardly. Try a nice lamb vindaloo sometime...
I've already had more than my share of sacree vache served up in a
variety of ways under various pretexts.Never developed a taste for it.

~v~~
Oct 9 '07 #39

P: n/a
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 20:05:32 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mi**********@earthlink.netwrote:
>Lester Zick wrote:
>>

I always thought freedom of speech was self moderating. I guess not.


Maybe the group you are posting from will be hit with over 50,000 bot
posts in one day, the next time around.
I think it already has been. I thought they were just out to get me.
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out there.
it really plugged up SED for a
while. it took me about a half hour to downlad the headers and delete
them, to find the 50 or so real posts that morning, but I'm on
broadbnd. the dialup guys weren't so lucky.
Been there, done that. Lost a lot of historical value to me. Nuisance
value more than anything else. Fortunately it just took a while.

~v~~
Oct 9 '07 #40

P: n/a
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 18:02:16 -0700, "Herbert John \"Jackie\" Gleason"
<Bu************@Texarkanacops.govwrote:
>On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 14:23:42 -0700, Lester Zick <do********@nowhere.net>
wrote:
>>>It will only get worse and I just think that nipping the problems in the bud
is the best solution instead of waiting until their full blown.

It's good to know the problem itself isn't already full blown.


They guy has a severe problem with the word "they're" in several
locations in this thread alone.
When people ask me how to approach demonstrations of truth in
universal terms I often suggest they begin by learning how to spell.

~v~~
Oct 9 '07 #41

P: n/a
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 19:55:28 -0700, John Larkin
<jj******@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.comwrote :
>On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 18:02:16 -0700, "Herbert John \"Jackie\" Gleason"
<Bu************@Texarkanacops.govwrote:
>>On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 14:23:42 -0700, Lester Zick <do********@nowhere.net>
wrote:
>>>>It will only get worse and I just think that nipping the problems in the bud
is the best solution instead of waiting until their full blown.

It's good to know the problem itself isn't already full blown.


They guy has a severe problem with the word "they're" in several
^^^^^^^^
>>locations in this thread alone.


They guy?

Funny.
Hoist with his own petard? Hard to make a serious point when people
are laughing.

~v~~
Oct 9 '07 #42

P: n/a
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 23:33:12 -0700, ChairmanOfTheBored
<RU*****@crackasmile.orgwrote:
>On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 19:55:28 -0700, John Larkin
<jj******@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.comwrot e:
>>On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 18:02:16 -0700, "Herbert John \"Jackie\" Gleason"
<Bu************@Texarkanacops.govwrote:
>>>On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 14:23:42 -0700, Lester Zick <do********@nowhere.net>
wrote:

>It will only get worse and I just think that nipping the problems in the bud
>is the best solution instead of waiting until their full blown.

It's good to know the problem itself isn't already full blown.
They guy has a severe problem with the word "they're" in several
^^^^^^^^
>>>locations in this thread alone.


They guy?

Funny.

John
Typo, dipshit. You... retarded.
Well sure. We all make them occasionally. That's why I don't comment
unless its repeated. But you have no idea how disconcerting it can to
be reading a comment critically when you come across a boo boo like
that. At the very least it destroys the train of thought.And technical
types are usually the worst offenders.

~v~~
Oct 9 '07 #43

P: n/a
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 07:05:19 -0700, John Larkin
<jj******@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.comwrote :
>On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 23:33:12 -0700, ChairmanOfTheBored
<RU*****@crackasmile.orgwrote:
>>On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 19:55:28 -0700, John Larkin
<jj******@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.comwrote :
>>>On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 18:02:16 -0700, "Herbert John \"Jackie\" Gleason"
<Bu************@Texarkanacops.govwrote:

On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 14:23:42 -0700, Lester Zick <do********@nowhere.net>
wrote:

>>It will only get worse and I just think that nipping the problems in the bud
>>is the best solution instead of waiting until their full blown.
>
>It's good to know the problem itself isn't already full blown.
They guy has a severe problem with the word "they're" in several
^^^^^^^^
locations in this thread alone.
They guy?

Funny.

John
Typo, dipshit. You... retarded.

SAT 1520. How did you do?
I don't consider it an issue of raw smarts but of composition skills.

~v~~
Oct 9 '07 #44

P: n/a
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 08:31:05 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 10:19:37 -0400, Fred Bloggs <no****@nospam.comwrote:
>>John Larkin wrote:
>>SAT 1520. How did you do?
It shows; 80 points shy of perfect, what an incapable dolt:-))

Well, all that verbal stuff confuses me.
I only got 632+774, but I got two 800s on the "achievement" part.

Cheers!
Rich

Oct 9 '07 #45

P: n/a
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 08:31:05 -0700, John Larkin
<jj******@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.comwrote :
>On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 10:19:37 -0400, Fred Bloggs <no****@nospam.com>
wrote:
>>

John Larkin wrote:
>>>
SAT 1520. How did you do?

John

It shows; 80 points shy of perfect, what an incapable dolt:-))

Well, all that verbal stuff confuses me.
Often the case with technical types. Quite possibly the reason they
become technical types to begin with. Mathematikers have proven quite
immune to considerations of truth in their own purview alas.

~v~~
Oct 9 '07 #46

P: n/a
On 8 Oct 2007 21:01:53 GMT, "Default User" <de***********@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>Rick Decker wrote:
The worst would be cooks who prepare Spam. Though Spam is very
popular in some places (I understand that Hawaiians consume more
Spam than any other state in the US), I've never known a cook
who can prepare it well.


Prepare it? You rip off the lid and either use a fork to eat it
out of the can, or slice it and make sandwiches. Only wimps need to
'prepare it'. Soldiers during WWII didn't need it 'prepared', and if
it was good enough for them, it should be plenty good enough for you!

Yeah, and LOT of those guys are dead now. Coincidence? I think not.
They got shot with spam?

~v~~
Oct 9 '07 #47

P: n/a
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 19:32:48 -0500, John Fields
<jf*****@austininstruments.comwrote:
>On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 19:24:11 -0500, me <me@here.netwrote:
>>"Michael A. Terrell" <mi**********@earthlink.netwrote in
news:47***************@earthlink.net:
>>>Default User wrote:
Yeah, and LOT of those guys are dead now. Coincidence? I think not.
Yeah, old age kills a LOT of people.

I think it gets everyone ...

---
Well, maybe not, but the ones it doesn't get have to keep moving...
Old soldiers never die; they just fade away.

~v~~
Oct 9 '07 #48

P: n/a
John Larkin wrote:
>
>>5. Moderation - Potentially give regular users of the group the ability to
"quasi-moderate" or in general just have a wide range of options to have
more control over groups(But not to much).


Moderated groups tend to be dull or totally dead. The cure is worse
than the disease.

John

Hi John,
Depends on the group. I haunt a moderated group that is supposed to be
discussing Babylon 5 that is pretty active, but it 'strays' from the
core topic a bit... ;-)

Charlie
Oct 9 '07 #49

P: n/a
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 12:10:39 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@nowhere.netwrote:
>On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 23:33:12 -0700, ChairmanOfTheBored
<RU*****@crackasmile.orgwrote:
>>On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 19:55:28 -0700, John Larkin
<jj******@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.comwrote :
>>>On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 18:02:16 -0700, "Herbert John \"Jackie\" Gleason"
<Bu************@Texarkanacops.govwrote:

On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 14:23:42 -0700, Lester Zick <do********@nowhere.net>
wrote:

>>It will only get worse and I just think that nipping the problems in the bud
>>is the best solution instead of waiting until their full blown.
>
>It's good to know the problem itself isn't already full blown.
They guy has a severe problem with the word "they're" in several
^^^^^^^^
locations in this thread alone.
They guy?

Funny.

John
Typo, dipshit. You... retarded.

Well sure. We all make them occasionally. That's why I don't comment
unless its repeated.
^^^
??? LOL!!!
---
>But you have no idea how disconcerting it can to
^
be
---
>be reading a comment critically when you come across a boo boo like
that. At the very least it destroys the train of thought.And technical
^
Space or 2
>types are usually the worst offenders.

--
JF
Oct 9 '07 #50

224 Replies

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.