Re: Addition to my FAQ - re NSP shut downs
- From: Mike Yetto <myetto1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:50:09 -0400
Bada bing Blinky the Shark <no.spam@xxxxxxxxxxx> bada bang:
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?
No thanks, I'm on a diet.
Mike "oh, second the *motion*, never mind" Yetto
--
Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitas.
- William of Ockham
.
- Next by Date: Re: XNEWS Hangs with new Server
- Next by thread: Re: Addition to my FAQ - re NSP shut downs
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
