In MsgID on Wed, 12 Aug 2009 22:48:21
+0100, in uk.net.news.config, 'kat' wrote:

>
>Peter J Ross said:
>
>> Newsgroups SHOULD NOT be created just because there's a fashion for
>> using software that lacks standard coring/killfiling features that are
>> incorporated in all adequate Usenet software. Users of Google Groups,
>> Outlook Express, Windows Live Mail, Thunderbird, Forte Agent and the
>> like need to be *educated*, not bowed down to.
>>
>
>Aside from the fact I consider that to be elitist crap, 

Why is it elitist to say they need to be 'educated' ? If he'd said they
need to be kicked out or killfiled or ignored in some way then maybe, but
to say they need some input from someone who *does* know how it ticks
(this presumably includes from him) seems inclusive rather than elitist.

>I would imagine most 
>of them will be driven away by the mind numbingly boring content of groups 
>such as urc is in the current circumstances, before you get the chance.

Yes, it is a problem that so much software has the filtering settings so
hidden away (or even doesn't have them at all) because one of the first
things I learnt (I started out in the alt.* groups) was how to filter some
of the rubbish. I also learnt the failings of the client I prefer but I
didn't have to switch because I could intercept the nntp connection and do
some trickery to 'mark' the headers. If I couldn't then I'd have had to go
searching for something a little more flexible.

AFAIAC it's an intrinsic part of usenet (even if slightly less so in this
hierarchy) to filter the rubbish. Either that or you have to bail out of
some groups that would otherwise eat your free time in its entirety,

The above said, my wetware filter suffices these days. I can't remember
the last time I had to do more than temporarily put one or two posters
into the 'mark as read' bin to clear a few hundred junk posts from the
couple of dozen I wanted to read. But, I'm a lot more tolerant of rubbish,
partly perhaps because I'm a quick skim-reader and certainly partly
because I think of some of the rubbish as a valid part of usenet.

Many people would be swamped by what I'll dive through and it's these who
really really need to know how to slice away the junk. In the early days I
may have tended toward that. Also, in the early days I was sampling a lot
more groups, to find the ones with mainly desirable stuff. I wouldn't have
had enough time without some sort of strategy.

I don't understand people who don't see usenet as what it *is* which is a
free posting medium divided into rough sections, with as little censorship
as possible so as to allow everyone the maximum freedom to say what they
like. There's obvious costs to this freedom but I feel they're more than
outweighed by the benefits. I also know that there are tools that
dramatically reduce the impact of some of those costs. They're part of
getting the maximum enjoyment from this environment and they're IMHO
vastly preferable to changing the environment. 

In the same way as you couldn't 'build' a rainforest ecosystem, you
couldn't control usenet in such a way as to enforce (only) the benefits
gained by the freedoms.

>But, if they do learn anything, I wouldn't be one bit surprised if people 
>with your attitude were the first into the killfile.

If they misinterpreted him (and people like him) as you seem to then they
may have trouble gaining much from usenet anyhow IMHO.

I don't understand why you see it as so negative to believe that part of
getting the most from whichever medium (be it news web ftp irc email or
whatever) is learning how to 'drive' the software that provides the
interface.

My motivation for supporting urcm isn't to hand hold those who should find
a usenet manual and read a couple of pages on filtering, it's more to
flatten the ego of the jms thing. Sledgehammer/nut yes, I know.. (With
emphasis on the nut part)

Dave J,

Dave J. said:
> In MsgID on Wed, 12 Aug 2009
> 22:48:21 +0100, in uk.net.news.config, 'kat' wrote:
>
>>
>> Peter J Ross said:
>>
>>> Newsgroups SHOULD NOT be created just because there's a fashion for
>>> using software that lacks standard coring/killfiling features that
>>> are incorporated in all adequate Usenet software. Users of Google
>>> Groups, Outlook Express, Windows Live Mail, Thunderbird, Forte
>>> Agent and the like need to be *educated*, not bowed down to.
>>>
>>
>> Aside from the fact I consider that to be elitist crap,
>
> Why is it elitist to say they need to be 'educated' ? If he'd said
> they need to be kicked out or killfiled or ignored in some way then
> maybe, but to say they need some input from someone who *does* know
> how it ticks (this presumably includes from him) seems inclusive
> rather than elitist.

 The wording of his post suggests that users of a variety of clients are 
using inadequate software and need to be educated.  Not some.  Just "Users". 
And that includes you as well as me.



>
>> I would imagine most
>> of them will be driven away by the mind numbingly boring content of
>> groups such as urc is in the current circumstances, before you get
>> the chance.
>
> Yes, it is a problem that so much software has the filtering settings
> so hidden away (or even doesn't have them at all) because one of the
> first things I learnt (I started out in the alt.* groups) was how to
> filter some of the rubbish. I also learnt the failings of the client
> I prefer but I didn't have to switch because I could intercept the
> nntp connection and do some trickery to 'mark' the headers. If I
> couldn't then I'd have had to go searching for something a little
> more flexible.

I learned the failings a long time ago - but I cope just fine.  As you say 
below, my wetware filter gets a lot of use.


>
> AFAIAC it's an intrinsic part of usenet (even if slightly less so in
> this hierarchy) to filter the rubbish. Either that or you have to
> bail out of some groups that would otherwise eat your free time in
> its entirety,
>
> The above said, my wetware filter suffices these days. I can't
> remember the last time I had to do more than temporarily put one or
> two posters into the 'mark as read' bin to clear a few hundred junk
> posts from the couple of dozen I wanted to read. But, I'm a lot more
> tolerant of rubbish, partly perhaps because I'm a quick skim-reader
> and certainly partly because I think of some of the rubbish as a
> valid part of usenet.
>
> Many people would be swamped by what I'll dive through and it's these
> who really really need to know how to slice away the junk. In the
> early days I may have tended toward that. Also, in the early days I
> was sampling a lot more groups, to find the ones with mainly
> desirable stuff. I wouldn't have had enough time without some sort of
> strategy.
>
> I don't understand people who don't see usenet as what it *is* which
> is a free posting medium divided into rough sections, with as little
> censorship as possible so as to allow everyone the maximum freedom to
> say what they like. There's obvious costs to this freedom but I feel
> they're more than outweighed by the benefits. I also know that there
> are tools that dramatically reduce the impact of some of those costs.
> They're part of getting the maximum enjoyment from this environment
> and they're IMHO vastly preferable to changing the environment.
>
> In the same way as you couldn't 'build' a rainforest ecosystem, you
> couldn't control usenet in such a way as to enforce (only) the
> benefits gained by the freedoms.
>
>> But, if they do learn anything, I wouldn't be one bit surprised if
>> people with your attitude were the first into the killfile.
>
> If they misinterpreted him (and people like him) as you seem to then
> they may have trouble gaining much from usenet anyhow IMHO.
>
> I don't understand why you see it as so negative to believe that part
> of getting the most from whichever medium (be it news web ftp irc
> email or whatever) is learning how to 'drive' the software that
> provides the interface.

Maybe I do misinterpret, but you have to remember, I came here on the back 
of a proposal which many saw as the end of usenet as we know it, bringing in 
the masses, who ought to be using web forums for their silly chats.  When I 
first stood for the committee I said I was standing for the ordinary poster, 
and the ordinary poster uses OE. Thunderbird, or even these days Google 
groups.    I want people to want to come to usenet and find out what it is 
all about not be scared away by trolls, or by people sternly telling them 
their newseader is rubbish and they need to do it all some complicated way.

I am afraid I read every post Peter made and concluded he sees it more as a 
private club, access being gained only once you have mastered a degree 
course fancy scoring and killfile filters.  He doesn't seem to want new 
people who need encouragement and a safe place to start.  He would clearly 
prefer it all to die.

>
> My motivation for supporting urcm isn't to hand hold those who should
> find a usenet manual and read a couple of pages on filtering, it's
> more to flatten the ego of the jms thing. Sledgehammer/nut yes, I
> know.. (With emphasis on the nut part)
>
>

Quite.  jms single handedly convinced me of the need for something to be 
done, in this case.  Others convinced me that killfiling wasn't working - 
other than the simplest killfile of all - leaving the group and ignoring it 
all.


-- 
kat
   >^..^<

On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 19:06:57 +0100, "kat"  wrote
in :

> The wording of his post suggests that users of a variety of clients are 
>using inadequate software and need to be educated.  Not some.  Just "Users". 
>And that includes you as well as me.

It includes me too, at least in my personal/leisure use of newsgroups.
At home I use an old version of Forte Agent, and this apparently means
that I need to be educated as if my choice had been made in ignorance.

I also use gnus, which I observe is not in the list despite its having
scoring and other facilities requiring far more effort to learn than I
am willing to devote to the exercise. I could get hold of the code and
hack it into a more usable version (I have more than enough experience
of emacs lisp) but the benefit would not be recompense for the effort.

When I first read that users of certain software need to be "educated"
my reaction was to think to myself "dickhead" and then move on without
commenting. Now that a debate has ensued I feel sufficiently motivated
(and lubricated with Penderyn!) to add my own thoughts on the subject.

>Maybe I do misinterpret, but you have to remember, I came here on the back 
>of a proposal which many saw as the end of usenet as we know it, bringing in 
>the masses, who ought to be using web forums for their silly chats.  When I 
>first stood for the committee I said I was standing for the ordinary poster, 
>and the ordinary poster uses OE. Thunderbird, or even these days Google 
>groups.    I want people to want to come to usenet and find out what it is 
>all about not be scared away by trolls, or by people sternly telling them 
>their newseader is rubbish and they need to do it all some complicated way.

I remember the proposal and the nature of some of the debate. I do not
remember the specific candidate statement but I remember thinking that
"kat" seemed to have a generally sensible attitude, especially towards
those who were not the traditional technology biased denizens of news.

This discussion has reminded me of a talk by Gene Spafford that it was
my privilege to attend. He made the point that if the number of people
using the internet doubles in one year then half the users necessarily
have at most a years experience. Success for the medium means that the
experienced users will be outnumbered by the newcomers and it would be
foolish for the old timers to complain that the new arrivals have less
experience. Although that talk referred to the internet as a whole, it
applies just as well to netnews; success implies an influx of the new.

>I am afraid I read every post Peter made and concluded he sees it more as a 
>private club, access being gained only once you have mastered a degree 
>course fancy scoring and killfile filters.  He doesn't seem to want new 
>people who need encouragement and a safe place to start.  He would clearly 
>prefer it all to die.

The posts that I have read do seem to admit such an interpretation but
perhaps I would be a little more lenient. The posts bring to mind what
was once said to me by a karate black belt about those who had reached
the green belt level; they had achieved the level of power that caused
them to be dangerous but had not yet achieved sufficient experience to
enable control of that power. Knowing that certain client software can
be configured to mitigate the damage that some posters inflict on some
newsgroups implies a certain degree of experience. Having the skill to
select, install and configure software of that kind is another sign of
experience of a certain kind. Understanding that there are many people
who do not see why they should have to go to that kind of trouble just
to cater to the activities of those who apparently take delight in the
disruption of the pleasures of others seems to me to indicate a degree
of experience beyond the simple understanding of technological issues.

Although initially prompted by having been offended by the implication
that my software of convenience implied a lack of education, those who
are reading in a fixed pitch font may perhaps observe that I have been
amusing myself in constructing this message as well as in its content.

In MsgID on Sat, 15 Aug 2009 19:06:57
+0100, in uk.net.news.config, 'kat' wrote:

>> Why is it elitist to say they need to be 'educated' ? If he'd said
>> they need to be kicked out or killfiled or ignored in some way then
>> maybe, but to say they need some input from someone who *does* know
>> how it ticks (this presumably includes from him) seems inclusive
>> rather than elitist.
>
> The wording of his post suggests that users of a variety of clients are 
>using inadequate software and need to be educated.  Not some.  

Oh. Well, to me a statement that someone needs to be educated is not
inflammatory. Even (in fact especially) if (when!) that someone is me.

If someone is vigorously complaining about something that half decent
software and/or a halfway manual-reading user would remove, then most
people here will gently and politely try to tell them their mistake and
that the problem is not a problem. If that person then insists that their
choice of software is final or ignores multiple explanations of how to
manipulate their chosen environment and *continues* to bellyache about the
difficulty then I'm sorry, but that's one place that a killfile can be
useful, once the conversation has degenerated to a jms level.

>Just "Users". 
>And that includes you as well as me.

See above :-)

Plus, I know this thing has very very middle of the road filtering
capabilities but I have yet to find another interface that feels as
intuitively simple to use and that has the features I see as
indispensable. As mentioned before, I'd sooner write a simple filter util
than switch. In fact I'd probably sooner attempt to write a client, given
some of the alternatives I've met. 

>I am afraid I read every post Peter made and concluded he sees it more as a 
>private club, access being gained only once you have mastered a degree 
>course fancy scoring and killfile filters.  He doesn't seem to want new 
>people who need encouragement and a safe place to start.  He would clearly 
>prefer it all to die.

I'm perhaps midway between your attitude and Peter's (or rather your
perception of Peter's - I rate him at an order or so more welcoming than
you think). I do believe in (and like) the self filtering aspect of
usenet. One of the things about the internet in general is that it's got a
bootstrapping process built in for beginners who want to learn. If you are
reasonably humble about what you don't know and can accept that any
environment more complex than a wet warm red bubble carries learning as an
absolute requirement then the internet is perfect. 

The features that bring enjoyment of the 'net are the very features you
can use to learn more, and the more you learn, not only the more you
realise you need to learn, but the more you *can* learn. The WWW and
Usenet are classic examples of this. A difference between web and nntp is
that on the web you can bumble along with little more than some hand to
eye coordination and the ability to read (provided someone's set the
machine up for you). You don't *have* to go for the bootstrapping process.

However under Usenet, you absolutely must learn in order to function.
One'll get away without deep learning, under a limited subset of groups,
but at the very least some socialisation is required. The other side
though is that rejection doesn't happen before the missing information has
been proffered several times.

I don't think PJR has any objection to beginner groups, where people can
learn to chat, learn about acceptable layout, be told about the various
clients and about how groups are defined/created/removed; the very basics
that are necessary. They can also be introduced to the four letter acronym
that most resembles 'food' if they reject the information. They can then
either depart or learn to enjoy living in killfiles.

As things become more complex though and as the true freedom of usenet
becomes more and more obvious, you do start to need filters and other
useful software features. If you want to be truly versatile then you
*need* decent software. To whinge about this and expect the world to
change in order to avoid that need is IMHO *not* the right attitude. I
actively like the way that people who if they could would change usenet
into a voice recognition based cross between SMS chat, sanitised IRC and
the Sun letters page find they cannot cope because the world *won't*
change like that. They are, quite rightly, spat back out onto the web. In
fact, it's perhaps the one good thing that the textual-hoodie version of
trollery can achieve. 

None of this is relevant to my position on the uk.rcm group; I'm quite
happy to ignore the above (I don't have rules, just observations about how
I *usually* behave :-)) and vote for the creation of a group for no other
reason than what's AFAICT effectively a beginners' group wanting shot of
someone who defeats their basic grasp of filtration. Granted, it's also
swayed by the unpleasant gustatory synaesthesia associated with reading
the poster they want shot of, but we're all allowed a little personal bias
here and there :-)

Congratulations if you've read all the way down here. I really shouldn't
allow waffle-based postings at three o'clock in the morning :-) 

Dave J.

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 08:21:49 +0100, Molly Mockford
 wrote:

>>Although initially prompted by having been offended by the implication
>>that my software of convenience implied a lack of education, those who
>>are reading in a fixed pitch font may perhaps observe that I have been
>>amusing myself in constructing this message as well as in its content.
>
>And to such excellent effect, with no strained infelicities to 
>side-track the attention, that I was half-way through your post before I 
>realised what you were doing.  :applause:


I don't think there is any justification for that.
-- 
Geoff Berrow
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Put thecat out to email

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 03:34:36 +0100, Dave J. 
wrote:

>> The wording of his post suggests that users of a variety of clients are 
>>using inadequate software and need to be educated.  Not some.  
>
>Oh. Well, to me a statement that someone needs to be educated is not
>inflammatory. Even (in fact especially) if (when!) that someone is me.

Oh I think it is.  PJR is such a tease. 


-- 
Geoff Berrow
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Put thecat out to email

In MsgID on Sun, 16 Aug 2009
00:50:23 +0100, in uk.net.news.config, 'Owen Rees' wrote:

>those who
>are reading in a fixed pitch font may perhaps observe that I have been
>amusing myself in constructing this message as well as in its content.

Indeed. I'm impressed by patience and felxibility that I'd never manage.
Not something that anyone could automate either. In fact, although I put
that as a certainty, it is perhaps just about possible these days given
the evolution of some of the 'liza' clones WRT linguistic analysis. It'd
make a fascinating problem to set the 3rd year of a computing degree
course.

Dave J.

Dave J. said:
> In MsgID on Sat, 15 Aug 2009
> 19:06:57 +0100, in uk.net.news.config, 'kat' wrote:
>
>>> Why is it elitist to say they need to be 'educated' ? If he'd said
>>> they need to be kicked out or killfiled or ignored in some way then
>>> maybe, but to say they need some input from someone who *does* know
>>> how it ticks (this presumably includes from him) seems inclusive
>>> rather than elitist.
>>
>> The wording of his post suggests that users of a variety of clients
>> are using inadequate software and need to be educated.  Not some.
>
> Oh. Well, to me a statement that someone needs to be educated is not
> inflammatory. Even (in fact especially) if (when!) that someone is me.

If he had said /I/ needed educating I would have either agreed, or slapped 
him, depending on the context.  It was the sweeping statement that got up my 
nose.


>
> If someone is vigorously complaining about something that half decent
> software and/or a halfway manual-reading user would remove, then most
> people here will gently and politely try to tell them their mistake
> and that the problem is not a problem. If that person then insists
> that their choice of software is final or ignores multiple
> explanations of how to manipulate their chosen environment and
> *continues* to bellyache about the difficulty then I'm sorry, but
> that's one place that a killfile can be useful, once the conversation
> has degenerated to a jms level.
>
>> Just "Users".
>> And that includes you as well as me.
>
> See above :-)
>
> Plus, I know this thing has very very middle of the road filtering
> capabilities but I have yet to find another interface that feels as
> intuitively simple to use and that has the features I see as
> indispensable. As mentioned before, I'd sooner write a simple filter
> util than switch. In fact I'd probably sooner attempt to write a
> client, given some of the alternatives I've met.
>
>> I am afraid I read every post Peter made and concluded he sees it
>> more as a private club, access being gained only once you have
>> mastered a degree course fancy scoring and killfile filters.  He
>> doesn't seem to want new people who need encouragement and a safe
>> place to start.  He would clearly prefer it all to die.
>
> I'm perhaps midway between your attitude and Peter's (or rather your
> perception of Peter's - I rate him at an order or so more welcoming
> than you think). I do believe in (and like) the self filtering aspect
> of usenet. One of the things about the internet in general is that
> it's got a bootstrapping process built in for beginners who want to
> learn. If you are reasonably humble about what you don't know and can
> accept that any environment more complex than a wet warm red bubble
> carries learning as an absolute requirement then the internet is
> perfect.

I feel the attitude of the tutor helps.  Do we want people to stay, and 
learn what they feel they need, or do we want them scared off by people 
announcing they need to be educated, like it or not?  I learned a lot from a 
number of posters on, would you believe, an AOL message board, that being 
the connection we had at the time.  They didn't feel it necessary to 
"educate", they just answered questions and chattered about alternatives.  I 
read, I tried things, I didn't feel forced!  It is possible that Peter 
sounds better when he is doing the helping than when he is talking about it. 
I wouldn't know.


>
> The features that bring enjoyment of the 'net are the very features
> you can use to learn more, and the more you learn, not only the more
> you realise you need to learn, but the more you *can* learn. The WWW
> and Usenet are classic examples of this. A difference between web and
> nntp is that on the web you can bumble along with little more than
> some hand to eye coordination and the ability to read (provided
> someone's set the machine up for you). You don't *have* to go for the
> bootstrapping process.
>
> However under Usenet, you absolutely must learn in order to function.
> One'll get away without deep learning, under a limited subset of
> groups, but at the very least some socialisation is required. The
> other side though is that rejection doesn't happen before the missing
> information has been proffered several times.
>
> I don't think PJR has any objection to beginner groups, where people
> can learn to chat, learn about acceptable layout, be told about the
> various clients and about how groups are defined/created/removed; the
> very basics that are necessary. They can also be introduced to the
> four letter acronym that most resembles 'food' if they reject the
> information. They can then either depart or learn to enjoy living in
> killfiles.

The problem with beginner groups is that people don't find usenet by 
searching for them.  if they find it all they do so by searching for 
information on something that interests them.  Usenet isn't promoted by 
ISPs, may don't provide any access.  So no-one is guided to a place to 
learn.

But they will learn the basics from the groups they join, or as you say, end 
up killfiled.  Why knowing how groups are created etc is a basic necessity I 
don't know.  It's interesting and useful if you want to do it, or be 
involved in it, but it's not Usenet 101, it comes later, surely? :-)



>
> As things become more complex though and as the true freedom of usenet
> becomes more and more obvious, you do start to need filters and other
> useful software features. If you want to be truly versatile then you
> *need* decent software. To whinge about this and expect the world to
> change in order to avoid that need is IMHO *not* the right attitude. I
> actively like the way that people who if they could would change
> usenet into a voice recognition based cross between SMS chat,
> sanitised IRC and the Sun letters page find they cannot cope because
> the world *won't* change like that. They are, quite rightly, spat
> back out onto the web. In fact, it's perhaps the one good thing that
> the textual-hoodie version of trollery can achieve.

Without wanting to change it, people might also not want to be truely 
versatile.  If they can get what they want, and do it without offending 
others, why should they work their socks off trying out software with bells 
and whistles they will never really need?  Thise who have that much interest 
can do it, the rest of us can manage without.    I have tried an assortment 
of clients, and almost lost the will to live.  I'd rather be reading the 
posts than working out how to not read some of them!

I know of a blind poster who does use voice recognition, and also, people 
will top post for his benefit, even those who loathe the practice, so you 
know, there are people out there who can and do make allowances, and change 
things to be helpful.



>
> None of this is relevant to my position on the uk.rcm group; I'm quite
> happy to ignore the above (I don't have rules, just observations
> about how I *usually* behave :-)) and vote for the creation of a
> group for no other reason than what's AFAICT effectively a beginners'
> group wanting shot of someone who defeats their basic grasp of
> filtration. Granted, it's also swayed by the unpleasant gustatory
> synaesthesia associated with reading the poster they want shot of,
> but we're all allowed a little personal bias here and there :-)

<g>

>
> Congratulations if you've read all the way down here. I really
> shouldn't allow waffle-based postings at three o'clock in the morning
> :-)
>

Oh, I made it.  Eventually. ;-)


-- 
kat
   >^..^<

Wm... said:
> Sun, 16 Aug 2009 13:51:45 
> uk.net.news.config kat 
>
>>> Congratulations if you've read all the way down here. I really
>>> shouldn't allow waffle-based postings at three o'clock in the
>>> morning :-)
>>>
>>
>> Oh, I made it.  Eventually. ;-)
>
> I'm doing scallops with nice bread for a late lunch.  Sorry, no
> waffles.

Waffles are for breakfast.:-)


-- 
kat
   >^..^<

On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 18:13:38 +0100, Peter J Ross <pjr@example.invalid>
wrote:

>In uk.net.news.config on Sat, 15 Aug 2009 22:42:19 +0100, Adam Funk
> wrote:
>
>> PJR is respected for his expertise in news.software.readers and
>> related places.
>
>And so are you.
>
>Almost everybody who's offered an opinion in this debate is highly
>respected. Even jms is highly regarded for her nice tits, probably.


Very grown up and mature.

Peter J Ross said:
> In uk.net.news.config on Sat, 15 Aug 2009 19:06:57 +0100, kat
>  wrote:
>
>> I am afraid I read every post Peter made and concluded he sees it
>> more as a private club, access being gained only once you have
>> mastered a degree course fancy scoring and killfile filters.  He
>> doesn't seem to want new people who need encouragement and a safe
>> place to start.  He would clearly prefer it all to die.
>
> You're mistaken about how I see Usenet.

I hope so.


-- 
kat
   >^..^<

Peter J Ross said:
> In uk.net.news.config on Sun, 16 Aug 2009 13:51:45 +0100, kat
>  wrote:
>
>> Dave J. said:
>>
>>> Oh. Well, to me a statement that someone needs to be educated is not
>>> inflammatory. Even (in fact especially) if (when!) that someone is
>>> me.
>>
>> If he had said /I/ needed educating I would have either agreed, or
>> slapped him, depending on the context.  It was the sweeping
>> statement that got up my nose.
>
> Can we let this drop? Please? I was impolite to you, and then you were
> impolite to me, and then I was even more impolite to you, etc.
>
> There is no need for warfare.
>
> <...>

<pout>  I was just explaining...


-- 
kat
   >^..^<

In MsgID on Tue, 18 Aug 2009 18:00:17
+0100, in uk.net.news.config, 'Peter J Ross' wrote:

>>> The wording of his post suggests that users of a variety of clients are 
>>>using inadequate software and need to be educated.  Not some.  
>>
>> Oh. Well, to me a statement that someone needs to be educated is not
>> inflammatory. Even (in fact especially) if (when!) that someone is me.
>
>If you tire of Agent 1.93 and want suggestions for your next
>newsreader, I have a few ideas.

I'd be interested in alternatives, certainly enough to have a go.
Although, I don't know how you'd improve on my current setup of Agent plus
a bolt-on filter buffer/proxy to string match the headers (or body I
suppose, if required) and poke "DEV-nill-NULL" into the from field where
appropriate. I'm sure there's clients with better built in killfile
facilities; my mix/match toy doesn't keep track of references, or threads
at all, but I've never felt the need. All really I wanted was something
that didn't chuck an epliptic fit at the sight of a wildcard.

My interest is only to see if any other client is similar enough to this
to feel equally comfortable, or enough of an improvement to be worth the
change.

>> I don't think PJR has any objection to beginner groups, where people can
>> learn to chat, learn about acceptable layout, be told about the various
>> clients and about how groups are defined/created/removed; the very basics
>> that are necessary. They can also be introduced to the four letter acronym
>> that most resembles 'food' if they reject the information. They can then
>> either depart or learn to enjoy living in killfiles.
>
>Do such beginner groups exist? I subscribe to groups like
>news.newusers.questions and news.groups.questions, but it's unusual to
>see non-spam posts in either of them.

You're probably right; the ones I've seen have also been ignored by most,
I suspect it's upon discovery that they're the last place beginners jump
in. 

Kat's quite right to say that new users tend to just dive straight into
whichever group was their first attraction.

There was even a beginners group on this hierarchy, once upon a time:
uk.net.beginners. 
Last seen alive on the 19th of April, 2005 ..

Dave J

On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 17:42:51 +0100, Peter J Ross <pjr@example.invalid>
wrote in :

>                              Huh?

It seems that some can count the length of lines
And gain some mild amusement when they match.
I cannot claim the style as being mine
For others posted in that style before me.

There are some other ways to style a post
That may perhaps amuse us while we wait
To read the count of votes for and against
The forming of a group that some desire
But others would prefer be not created.

Enough! The time has come to end this post,
But not before a little note of thanks
To he who volunteered to count the votes
And more than that to do the validation.

-- 
Owen Rees
[one of] my preferred email address[es] and more stuff can be
found at <http://www.users.waitrose.com/~owenrees/index.html>

On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 00:41:06 +0100, Owen Rees 
wrote:

>Enough! The time has come to end this post,
>But not before a little note of thanks
>To he who volunteered to count the votes
>And more than that to do the validation.

You're bard.
-- 
Geoff Berrow
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Put thecat out to email

Geoff Berrow said:
> On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 00:41:06 +0100, Owen Rees 
> wrote:
>
>> Enough! The time has come to end this post,
>> But not before a little note of thanks
>> To he who volunteered to count the votes
>> And more than that to do the validation.
>
> You're bard.

I  did read it as being declaimed by some old hack - it came out quite well.


-- 
kat
   >^..^<