Re: Addition to my FAQ - re NSP shut downs

Moe Trin wrote:

On 29 Jun 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup news.software.readers, in article
<Xns9ACCDB728B743rsingers@IP-Hidden>, Robert Singers wrote:

Mike Easter said

Why is the first par above the lead suggestion? Why does the 'stupid'
"cyber-racists" remark about GG fall so far short of whatall is wrong
with GG for reading and posting to usenet groups? That first par
alone makes your so-called faq a misguided missive.

The purpose of my FAQ is to guide people towards being able to read the
group.

Then point them at their favorite Internet search engine (there really
are more than google.com, but even that will work if it's the only one
you are aware of) and have them look for 'free Usenet servers'. You
list three free ones - and the search engine will find more than three
_lists_ of such servers.

A large number of the regs have moved to using Google anyway over the
last two years anyway so the use of Google is not detrimental to the
group.

If you are referring to the news.software.readers group, I see no
indication of such a move.

The only thing that would seem to be misguided is what appear to be
otherwise intelligent people buying into believing that abusive
behaviour is ok because it's on the Internet and it doesn't count.

You are entitled to your own thoughts. In the event that I do reply
to someone posting from google, my news reader automatically includes
the following right after the followup string:

NOTE: Posting from groups.google.com (or some web-forums) dramatically
reduces the chance of your post being seen. Find a real news server.

You can equate the (for the lack of a better name) anti-google movement
to any reason you desire, but it's still a well known fact that some
people who are normally helpful have included a simple rule in their
news reader filters:

Message-ID: groups.google.com

as a means of defense against the constant abuse flowing uncontrolled
from that source. That means they don't see posts (good or bad) from
that source. And if they don't see the post, they aren't going to
provide an answer to the post even if they know it by heart. If you
believe that is abusive behaviour, your sense of values needs to be
recalibrated.

I nominate that the idea that your right to filter is abusive as a tie for
Retarded Concept Of The Month along with the idea that Google Groupers
comprise a *race*.

Seconds?

--
Blinky
Is your ISP dropping Usenet?
Need a new feed?
http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Google/NOVA selective Usenet topic banishment
    ... made taboo/off-limits to receiving my warm and fuzzy words of wisdom? ... Sometimes when posting a very long ... I stumbled onto usenet in the early nineties I think (before Google ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Re: Tea Party turnout numbers?
    ... I don't need to speak for Google, ... Are you suggesting that posting on usenet through Google.... ... Proven LIAR and a Proven Coward. ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Guide Lines - Code of Conduct for the Recreation Radio Shortwave Newsgroup
    ... I have reviewed what is current on Google for the NewsGroups that are ... Usenet discussion groups dating back to 1981. ... GOOGLE GROUPS - POSTING STYLE GUIDE ...
    (rec.radio.shortwave)
  • Re: Troll Activity Going Through The Roof!!! Amazing!!!
    ... Google has permitted large numbers of individuals to access usenet who ... this thread is a person who, if you run a search on all his posts in this ... posting volume through the eyes of the Google interface, ...
    (alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots)
  • Re: Google/NOVA selective Usenet topic banishment
    ... Are you suggesting that it's those pesky Muslims in charge? ... Are you suggesting that Usenet is purely AI robo controlled? ... Sometimes when posting a very long ... I stumbled onto usenet in the early nineties I think (before Google ...
    (sci.energy)