On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 00:38:39 +0100, Peter J Ross <pjr@example.invalid>
wrote:

>Oh me! Oh my! 20% of the posts were abusive? Wow!!!

Yes.  You might not care but around half the regulars have left as a
result.  And Google Groups does not have killfiles.

Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc | http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/
"Nullius in Verba" - take no man's word for it.
 - attr. Horace, chosen by John Evelyn for the Royal Society

On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 21:14:19 +0100, Peter J Ross <pjr@example.invalid>
wrote:

>> And Google Groups does not have killfiles.
>
>There are alternatives to Google Groups, including several fine GUI
>newsreaders that are as easy to install and use as popular software
>like Firefox and Thunderbird. My current top recommendation is XPN:
><http://xpn.altervista.org/index-en.html>

Checked my User-Agent line?  But others don't have the option, for
example at work.  And some don't understand that Google Groups and
Usenet are two different things.

Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc | http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/
"Nullius in Verba" - take no man's word for it.
 - attr. Horace, chosen by John Evelyn for the Royal Society

Peter J Ross <pjr@example.invalid> considered Sun, 09 Aug 2009
00:16:27 +0100 the perfect time to write:

>In uk.net.news.config on Sat, 08 Aug 2009 23:13:39 +0100, Just zis
>Guy, you know?  wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 21:14:19 +0100, Peter J Ross <pjr@example.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> And Google Groups does not have killfiles.
>>>
>>>There are alternatives to Google Groups, including several fine GUI
>>>newsreaders that are as easy to install and use as popular software
>>>like Firefox and Thunderbird. My current top recommendation is XPN:
>>><http://xpn.altervista.org/index-en.html>
>>
>> Checked my User-Agent line?
>
>Yes.
>
>> But others don't have the option, for example at work.
>
>If one's employers don't want one to post to Usenet from work, it
>might be a good idea not to post to Usenet from work.

Often the prohibition is on "unauthorised software" rather than on the
actual process of posting.
Therefore a web interface to usenet is seen as acceptable, because it
uses software which is already validated and installed.
>
>> And some don't understand that Google Groups and
>> Usenet are two different things.
>
>Yes. Some people are indeed very stupid. But why should they be
>pandered to?

Possibly because you care enough about usenet to want to do something
to prevent the departure of valuable contibutors to web fora, which is
likely to leave usenet as a troll infested wasteland, with nothing of
value left.

On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 00:16:27 +0100, Peter J Ross <pjr@example.invalid>
wrote:

>> And some don't understand that Google Groups and
>> Usenet are two different things.
>
>Yes. Some people are indeed very stupid. But why should they be
>pandered to?

What a particularly ignorant thing to say.

How does a novice computer user stumble across Usenet?

Google groups is probably their first step into Usenet.  No wonder
that Usenet is not attracting enough new blood if people share your
attitude.

On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 00:16:27 +0100, Peter J Ross <pjr@example.invalid>
wrote:

>> But others don't have the option, for example at work.
>
>If one's employers don't want one to post to Usenet from work, it
>might be a good idea not to post to Usenet from work.

Mine certainly have no problem with it but are not about to open
firewall ports when a web-based workaround exists.  And Usenet is
about more than posting (at least for some of us).

Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc | http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/
"Nullius in Verba" - take no man's word for it.
 - attr. Horace, chosen by John Evelyn for the Royal Society

On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 09:39:38 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 00:16:27 +0100, Peter J Ross <pjr@example.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>> But others don't have the option, for example at work.
>>
>>If one's employers don't want one to post to Usenet from work, it
>>might be a good idea not to post to Usenet from work.
>
>Mine certainly have no problem with it but are not about to open
>firewall ports when a web-based workaround exists.  And Usenet is
>about more than posting (at least for some of us).
>
>Guy


They actually allocate IP addresses which have been used by
nym-shifters  in the past as well don't they?

--        
Guy Chapman nym-shifted to Lou Knee in order to call someone a shit.
He was caught out by the evidence of the IP address he used.
He has "implied" that it was not himself - but refuses to answer the simple question:
"Guy Chapman: Did you make the Lou Knee post?"
He is despicable - on this evidence you should not believe *anything* he says.

jms wrote:

> 
> --        
> Guy Chapman nym-shifted to Lou Knee in order to call someone a shit.
> He was caught out by the evidence of the IP address he used.
> He has "implied" that it was not himself - but refuses to answer the simple question:
> "Guy Chapman: Did you make the Lou Knee post?"
> He is despicable - on this evidence you should not believe *anything* he says. 



Old sig -- Guy said he posted as Lou Knee.

Wakey wakey!
-- 

Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts.

Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 00:16:27 +0100, Peter J Ross <pjr@example.invalid>
> wrote:
> 
>>> And some don't understand that Google Groups and
>>> Usenet are two different things.
>> Yes. Some people are indeed very stupid. But why should they be
>> pandered to?
> 
> What a particularly ignorant thing to say.
> 
> How does a novice computer user stumble across Usenet?
> 
> Google groups is probably their first step into Usenet.  No wonder
> that Usenet is not attracting enough new blood if people share your
> attitude.


Considering that many clients can have Usenet and Web-based acessable at 
the same time why is there the 'holier-than-thou' attitude?
Why should anyone really know or notice the difference if thier means of 
accessing either is the same?
They both seem to be similar in many ways though the acolytes will try 
and persuade otherwise.
But, maybe as I'm not using a 'real' client but T'bird, I know nothing 
while reading Google and Yahoo and Usenet stuff without having to open 
another app.



Or . . .  should I wear sackcloth and have a reader where the only 
colour for text is green and it all closely resembles ancient IBM 
mainframe screens like it was in the 'old' days before t'internet when 
we all had an IP address (or three) to hand.  ;-)


-- 

Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts.

Just zis Guy, you know?:

> Mine certainly have no problem with it but are not about to open
> firewall ports when a web-based workaround exists.

The problem is that there isn't an interface to Usenet on the World Wide
Web that is satisfactory. It isn't a case of someone not providing one,
but rather, for now, it's impossible. HTML forms are too unsophisticated
to deliver everything one would expect from a newsreader approaching the
Good Net-Keeping Seal of Approval. For example - not a requirement of
GNKSA, I know - whether or not one accepts the argument that the cursor
should be placed by default before the quoted text to encourage "snipping"
(spit! how I loathe that term) and discourage the shit-in-your-pants style
bottom-posting - genuine bottom-posting being only a special case of
normal, interwoven quoting - the cursor can't be pre-positioned in a
textarea to even after the attribution line. You can pre-populate the
textarea, sure, but not position the cursor within the text. Besides the
restrictions of HTML, Google Groups has shortcomings that would be easily
remedied. Its attribution lines, to take one example, are broken:
superfluous date and time stamps, mangled e-mail addresses (the local part
of my address is not "j..."), English even when one's interface isn't,
inability to change them (not all of us "write" or type our posts - and
even if we did, they don't have to be written "on" the day they're sent -
and I don't see any need to state how a message was composed by someone
else), the list goes on. "Workaround" implies that it works, but "works"
itself is a word bandied around too often without really thinking of the
universal audience of the World Wide Web. Even Google's interface as an
archive has not insurmountable problems - who'd've thunk it, eh? Broken as
designed. Ours is the age of the web of misinformation no one can access
anyway. Cheers, web duhzyners!

</rant>

> And Usenet is about more than posting (at least for some of us).

Precisely. It's about crossposting to two groups neither of which have the
slightest connection to what you're talking about. Seriously, if Usenet
were only about posting, there would, paradoxically, be no posting.

-- 
John

On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 15:17:52 +0100, Keitht <KeithT> wrote:

>Old sig -- Guy said he posted as Lou Knee.
>Wakey wakey!

Nope, that was a forgery.  But it's OK, I know judith uses a special
meaning of the word "despicable". Normally despicable means worthy of
despite, in her case it means someone to whom she's spiteful.

Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc | http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/
"Nullius in Verba" - take no man's word for it.
 - attr. Horace, chosen by John Evelyn for the Royal Society

On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 15:17:52 +0100, Keitht <KeithT> wrote:

>jms wrote:
>
>> 
>> --        
>> Guy Chapman nym-shifted to Lou Knee in order to call someone a shit.
>> He was caught out by the evidence of the IP address he used.
>> He has "implied" that it was not himself - but refuses to answer the simple question:
>> "Guy Chapman: Did you make the Lou Knee post?"
>> He is despicable - on this evidence you should not believe *anything* he says. 
>
>
>
>Old sig -- Guy said he posted as Lou Knee.
>
>Wakey wakey!


You are wrong.

Please point out where you think he did so just to clear  things up.

He has consistently failed to answer the question:

"Did you make the Lou Knee post?".

He could so easily respond to this post and answer that question.

I wonder if he will?


-- 
Show your non-acceptance of Ian Jackson as the proposed chief moderator of URCM and the use of his chiark system.
Vote against the formation of the group.

On Sun, 9 Aug 2009 19:56:13 +0100, Mark McNeill
 wrote:

>She puts me in mind of Daffy Duck; and it's not *just* that word.

More like Mafalda Hopkirk.  Daffy Duck is funny.

Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc | http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/
"Nullius in Verba" - take no man's word for it.
 - attr. Horace, chosen by John Evelyn for the Royal Society

On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 20:43:59 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>On Sun, 9 Aug 2009 19:56:13 +0100, Mark McNeill
> wrote:
>
>>She puts me in mind of Daffy Duck; and it's not *just* that word.
>
>More like Mafalda Hopkirk.  Daffy Duck is funny.
>
>Guy


Do you think it is funny to lie to your friends?

--        
Guy Chapman nym-shifted to Lou Knee in order to call someone a shit.
He was caught out by the evidence of the IP address he used.
He has "implied" that it was not himself - but refuses to answer the simple question:
"Guy Chapman: Did you make the Lou Knee post?"
He is despicable - on this evidence you should not believe *anything* he says.

Rob Morley wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 15:07:09 +0100
> Keitht <KeithT> wrote:
> 
>> Considering that many clients can have Usenet and Web-based acessable
>> at the same time why is there the 'holier-than-thou' attitude?
>> Why should anyone really know or notice the difference if thier means
>> of accessing either is the same?
>> They both seem to be similar in many ways though the acolytes will
>> try and persuade otherwise.
>> But, maybe as I'm not using a 'real' client but T'bird, I know
>> nothing while reading Google and Yahoo and Usenet stuff without
>> having to open another app.
> 
> I'd love to know what this post was supposed to mean.
> 


Can you include the clipped out stuff, please.
If you read that then it might help.

-- 

Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts.

On Sun, 9 Aug 2009 15:48:09 +0100, "Wm..."
 wrote:

>Sun, 9 Aug 2009 15:04:49  
>uk.net.news.config jms 
>
>>They actually allocate IP addresses which have been used by
>>nym-shifters  in the past as well don't they?
>
>They Shoot Horses, Don't They?
>
>think before replying, jms.  Others should feel free.


fuck off

-- 
Show your non-acceptance of Ian Jackson as the proposed chief moderator of URCM and the use of his chiark system.
Vote against the formation of the group.

On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 18:59:04 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 15:17:52 +0100, Keitht <KeithT> wrote:
>
>>Old sig -- Guy said he posted as Lou Knee.
>>Wakey wakey!
>
>Nope, that was a forgery.  But it's OK, I know judith uses a special
>meaning of the word "despicable". Normally despicable means worthy of
>despite, in her case it means someone to whom she's spiteful.
>
>Guy


Indeed it was a forgery.

So, you see, Guy has never owned up to the fact that he nym-shifted as
Lou Knee.

It is not despicable that he did the nym-shift.

I think it is despicable that he tried to convince his "friends" that
he had not done so.

To lie to one's friends : to be despicable; to be detested.

Crispin even came to his help and got a kick in the nuts for his
efforts - made him the fall guy.  (Must be a joke there)

Still Chapman is a good Christian so that must make it OK.


-- 
Show your non-acceptance of Ian Jackson as the proposed chief moderator of URCM and the use of his chiark system.
Vote against the formation of the group.

Rob Morley wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 09:12:16 +0100
> Keitht <KeithT> wrote:
> 
>> Rob Morley wrote:
>>> On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 15:07:09 +0100
>>> Keitht <KeithT> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Considering that many clients can have Usenet and Web-based
>>>> acessable at the same time why is there the 'holier-than-thou'
>>>> attitude? Why should anyone really know or notice the difference
>>>> if thier means of accessing either is the same?
>>>> They both seem to be similar in many ways though the acolytes will
>>>> try and persuade otherwise.
>>>> But, maybe as I'm not using a 'real' client but T'bird, I know
>>>> nothing while reading Google and Yahoo and Usenet stuff without
>>>> having to open another app.
>>> I'd love to know what this post was supposed to mean.
>>>
>>
>> Can you include the clipped out stuff, please.
> 
> Why?  That's not the bit that doesn't make sense to me.
> 
>> If you read that then it might help.
>>
> Context is not the problem.  On the other I can only guess at what you
> are trying to say, and as for getting the point of it I'm afraid I'm at
> a total loss.   There again you do seem to contradict yourself, so maybe
> it's your confusion that's causing my confusion.
> 

Just include the snipped stuff so I can comment about why I put what I 
did. Though if the snipped stuff was replaced there may be no need for 
me to explain anything.
I'd like others to be able to also ask me to clarify but they are also 
unable if all they see is what you've decided to comment on.

Context is the answer, the clipped stuff provides it.
Go on, give everyone a clue, so far you're the only one who's at a loss.

I'm just trying to work out who is marching out of step here.



-- 

Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts.

Rex M F Smith  considered Mon, 10 Aug 2009
12:53:12 +0100 the perfect time to write:

>In message , Tom Crispin 
><kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> writes
>>On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 00:16:27 +0100, Peter J Ross <pjr@example.invalid>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>> And some don't understand that Google Groups and
>>>> Usenet are two different things.
>>>
>>>Yes. Some people are indeed very stupid. But why should they be
>>>pandered to?
>>
>>What a particularly ignorant thing to say.
>>
>>How does a novice computer user stumble across Usenet?
>
>By setting up the newsreader my ISP supplied, by following their advice, 
>and by paying for access to it
>
>still doing 1 and 3

But the number of ISPs still providing usenet access is getting to be
vanishingly small - I don't think any still actively promote it, and I
don't believe any now provide a usenet client.

The _novice_ computer user is only likely to find usenet via GG.
It is possible that they may find something useful, and search out and
install a proper news client, if the computer they are using is their
own (or one they have administrative rights on), but this unlikely to
happen if all they find on GG is a troll infested wasteland.

"Phil W Lee" <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote ...

[snips]

> But the number of ISPs still providing usenet access is getting to be
> vanishingly small - I don't think any still actively promote it, and I
> don't believe any now provide a usenet client.

I suppose it depends on your definition of 'actively promoting' but Virgin
Media seems to do a reasonable job of it.

As to providing a usenet client, I don't consider that at all important
these days when most PC's are supplied with one installed and there are
plenty of options for those who want an alternative.

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 22:17:01 +0100, Peter J Ross <pjr@example.invalid>
wrote:

>Are you aware that lots of real news servers listen on port 80?

Of course.  Eternal-september is one of my providers.

Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc | http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/
"Nullius in Verba" - take no man's word for it.
 - attr. Horace, chosen by John Evelyn for the Royal Society

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 22:24:58 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 22:17:01 +0100, Peter J Ross <pjr@example.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>Are you aware that lots of real news servers listen on port 80?
>
>Of course.  Eternal-september is one of my providers.
>
>Guy


Are they the ones who  give you, and only you, the IP address
previously used by Lou Knee?

Or  do you use different providers for different "activities" - or
perhaps even different personas?

Isn't there a danger of making a slip and people spotting what you are
doing?

(Ho, ho, ho)


-- 
Show your non-acceptance of Ian Jackson as the proposed chief moderator of URCM and the use of his chiark system.
Vote against the formation of the group.

Peter J Ross <pjr@example.invalid> wrote in
news:slrnh814fg.4nd.pjr@pjr.gotdns.org: 

> In uk.net.news.config on Sun, 09 Aug 2009 23:39:41 +0100, jms
> wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 20:43:59 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 9 Aug 2009 19:56:13 +0100, Mark McNeill
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>She puts me in mind of Daffy Duck; and it's not *just* that
>>>>word. 
>>>
>>>More like Mafalda Hopkirk.  Daffy Duck is funny.
>>>
>>>Guy
>>
>> Do you think it is funny to lie to your friends?
> 
> I think it's funny that a halfwit like you is having so much
> success as a troll. I'm having fun pointing and laughing at your
> idiocy, but it seems that some URC posters are under the
> impression that what you write about them is worth refuting. This
> makes them almost as funny as you.
> 
> Seriously, folks, if an irruption of halfwitted trollery such as
> jms exhibits is a good reason to create a moderated newsgroup, we
> might as well make all of Usenet moderated right now.
> 

FWIW I think, from observing the group since the RFD, that what 
makes Judith such a potent troll for a group of essentially good-
natured and pleasant people such as most of urc is her obvious, 
uninterrupted and remorseless hatred and bitterness.  This is 
unsettling for people not used to such destructive and pointless (in 
the context) emotions.  But really I quite agree with you, although 
not so strongly as to vote against urcm.

In a group used to reflections of real world conflicts involving 
torture and death one has to get used to a proportion of posters on 
each side of the argument who clearly wish they had the opposing 
posters at their mercy in a blood-stained room:  Judith would not 
have a significant impact in that context, especially as she never 
seems to quite grasp the essential facts of the discussion she is 
having.


-- 
Percy Picacity

Peter J Ross <pjr@example.invalid> considered Mon, 10 Aug 2009
22:15:55 +0100 the perfect time to write:

>In uk.net.news.config on Sun, 09 Aug 2009 05:49:56 +0100, Tom Crispin
><kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 00:16:27 +0100, Peter J Ross <pjr@example.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> And some don't understand that Google Groups and
>>>> Usenet are two different things.
>>>
>>>Yes. Some people are indeed very stupid. But why should they be
>>>pandered to?
>>
>> What a particularly ignorant thing to say.
>>
>> How does a novice computer user stumble across Usenet?
>>
>> Google groups is probably their first step into Usenet.  No wonder
>> that Usenet is not attracting enough new blood if people share your
>> attitude.
>
>There are two kinds of newbies: the ones who are willing and able to learn, and
>the ones who aren't.
>
>The former will soon stop using Google Groups; the latter will soon be
>widely killfiled.

What about the ones who come looking for the newsgroup, and find the
signal to noise ratio so bad that they give up on finding anything
worthwhile.
I'd guess that they will also stop using GG, but not in favour of a
news client.
They'll be off to one of the many (moderated) web fora.
>
>But in fact Google Gropers can and should be helped. The time to stop
>pandering to them is when they start demanding moderated newsgroups
>for no better reason that that the software they're using is broken.
>
>But why am I even arguing with somebody who forges the potentially
>valid ".munge" TLD?