You ever notice OT could mean "off topic" or "on topic"?

Anyway, my question is relevant to what the old-timers call "usenet".
My isp stopped carrying newsgroups few years ago and I had to switch
to Google Groups. Not a fan, but it's the only thing I can use unless
I pay money and since I'm kinda poor headed towards even poorer I'd
rather not pay as long as free is available.

Do people here use newsgroup readers? Are there any free newsgroup
servers left? All I've ever found is ones I have to pay for. I'm
sure they are better than Google Groups and actually have features
like a "killfile" etc but GG is good enough. Just wondered if I was
missing something and there are any free news group servers. Used to
use Forte' agent but that was many posts ago.

On 6/16/2012 9:40 PM, somebody wrote:
> You ever notice OT could mean "off topic" or "on topic"?
>
> Anyway, my question is relevant to what the old-timers call "usenet".
> My isp stopped carrying newsgroups few years ago and I had to switch
> to Google Groups. Not a fan, but it's the only thing I can use unless
> I pay money and since I'm kinda poor headed towards even poorer I'd
> rather not pay as long as free is available.
>
> Do people here use newsgroup readers? Are there any free newsgroup
> servers left? All I've ever found is ones I have to pay for. I'm
> sure they are better than Google Groups and actually have features
> like a "killfile" etc but GG is good enough. Just wondered if I was
> missing something and there are any free news group servers. Used to
> use Forte' agent but that was many posts ago.

Sounds like you missed the numerous discussions that came up when ISPs
turned off servers to "save the children". I started using this one when
comcast turned off Usenet access:

http://www.eternal-september.org/

On 6/16/2012 9:40 PM, somebody wrote:
> You ever notice OT could mean "off topic" or "on topic"?
>
> Anyway, my question is relevant to what the old-timers call "usenet".
> My isp stopped carrying newsgroups few years ago and I had to switch
> to Google Groups. Not a fan, but it's the only thing I can use unless
> I pay money and since I'm kinda poor headed towards even poorer I'd
> rather not pay as long as free is available.
>
> Do people here use newsgroup readers? Are there any free newsgroup
> servers left? All I've ever found is ones I have to pay for. I'm
> sure they are better than Google Groups and actually have features
> like a "killfile" etc but GG is good enough. Just wondered if I was
> missing something and there are any free news group servers. Used to
> use Forte' agent but that was many posts ago.

The one I use - news.individual.net - is close to free. It's only 10
Euros (about $12.50) per _year_. They're very good at filtering out cr*p.
I use Thunderbird (free) to read - the filters are very easy to set up.

On Jun 16, 9:48*pm, George > wrote:
> On 6/16/2012 9:40 PM, somebody wrote:
>
> > You ever notice OT could mean "off topic" or "on topic"?
>
> > Anyway, my question is relevant to what the old-timers call "usenet".
> > My isp stopped carrying newsgroups few years ago and I had to switch
> > to Google Groups. *Not a fan, but it's the only thing I can use unless
> > I pay money and since I'm kinda poor headed towards even poorer I'd
> > rather not pay as long as free is available.
>
> > Do people here use newsgroup readers? *Are there any free newsgroup
> > servers left? *All I've ever found is ones I have to pay for. *I'm
> > sure they are better than Google Groups and actually have features
> > like a "killfile" etc but GG is good enough. *Just wondered if I was
> > missing something and there are any free news group servers. *Used to
> > use Forte' agent but that was many posts ago.
>
> Sounds like you missed the numerous discussions that came up when ISPs
> turned off servers to "save the children". I started using this one when
> comcast turned off Usenet access:
>
> http://www.eternal-september.org/


By George, I think it's working! I see newsgroup names
downloading... And now Vista Mail is loading messages. Hey, this is
great. Much better than Google Groups!

Thank you very much!!!

"George" > wrote in message
...
> On 6/16/2012 9:40 PM, somebody wrote:
>> You ever notice OT could mean "off topic" or "on topic"?
>>
>> Anyway, my question is relevant to what the old-timers call "usenet".
>> My isp stopped carrying newsgroups few years ago and I had to switch
>> to Google Groups. Not a fan, but it's the only thing I can use unless
>> I pay money and since I'm kinda poor headed towards even poorer I'd
>> rather not pay as long as free is available.
>>
>> Do people here use newsgroup readers? Are there any free newsgroup
>> servers left? All I've ever found is ones I have to pay for. I'm
>> sure they are better than Google Groups and actually have features
>> like a "killfile" etc but GG is good enough. Just wondered if I was
>> missing something and there are any free news group servers. Used to
>> use Forte' agent but that was many posts ago.
>
> Sounds like you missed the numerous discussions that came up when ISPs
> turned off servers to "save the children". I started using this one when
> comcast turned off Usenet access:
>
> http://www.eternal-september.org/

Yep.

Somebody wrote:
>
> "George" > wrote in message
> >
> > http://www.eternal-september.org/
>
> I see messages in a hierarchy under a topic! Like I used years ago. Now, I
> can tell who is responding to who. Unlike Google Groups where I had to wade
> through old messages to see if there were new messages, and it wasn't
> obvious who was responding to who... And I can kill file spam. And glance
> through a thread and see where it started and ends. This is great!
>
> Thank you!

Nice to have it back, isn't it?
George hooked you up with that one.
If you ever need a backup this is free too:
http://www.aioe.org

Gary

On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 19:14:56 -0700 (PDT), somebody
> wrote:

> By George, I think it's working! I see newsgroup names
> downloading... And now Vista Mail is loading messages. Hey, this is
> great. Much better than Google Groups!
>
> Thank you very much!!!

Heh! Almost *anything* is better than GG. If you want binaries, like
garden groups with individual images, and don't mind paying a couple
of bucks for newsgroup access (monthly or a block account), you will
have even more choices.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

"S Viemeister" > wrote in message
...
> On 6/16/2012 9:40 PM, somebody wrote:
>> You ever notice OT could mean "off topic" or "on topic"?
>>
>> Anyway, my question is relevant to what the old-timers call "usenet".
>> My isp stopped carrying newsgroups few years ago and I had to switch
>> to Google Groups. Not a fan, but it's the only thing I can use unless
>> I pay money and since I'm kinda poor headed towards even poorer I'd
>> rather not pay as long as free is available.
>>
>> Do people here use newsgroup readers? Are there any free newsgroup
>> servers left? All I've ever found is ones I have to pay for. I'm
>> sure they are better than Google Groups and actually have features
>> like a "killfile" etc but GG is good enough. Just wondered if I was
>> missing something and there are any free news group servers. Used to
>> use Forte' agent but that was many posts ago.
>
> The one I use - news.individual.net - is close to free. It's only 10 Euros
> (about $12.50) per _year_. They're very good at filtering out cr*p.
> I use Thunderbird (free) to read - the filters are very easy to set up.


I use news.individual.net (NIN), too. Great service! IIRC it is maintained
by students at a university in Germany.

Jill

sf wrote:
>
> On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 19:14:56 -0700 (PDT), somebody
> > wrote:
>
> > By George, I think it's working! I see newsgroup names
> > downloading... And now Vista Mail is loading messages. Hey, this is
> > great. Much better than Google Groups!
> >
> > Thank you very much!!!
>
> Heh! Almost *anything* is better than GG. If you want binaries, like
> garden groups with individual images, and don't mind paying a couple
> of bucks for newsgroup access (monthly or a block account), you will
> have even more choices.

If I could get back some of my favorite nudie binary groups, I would gladly
pay. ;o

Gary

somebody wrote:
>
> [Thank you benevolent Overlords for Google Groups, but I no longer
> need them.]

I keep my google account as a backup. When I'm on travel I nevre know
if the network du jour might block NNTP protocol.

On 6/17/2012 3:09 AM, sf wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 19:14:56 -0700 (PDT), somebody
> > wrote:
>
>> By George, I think it's working! I see newsgroup names
>> downloading... And now Vista Mail is loading messages. Hey, this is
>> great. Much better than Google Groups!
>>
>> Thank you very much!!!
>
> Heh! Almost *anything* is better than GG. If you want binaries, like
> garden groups with individual images, and don't mind paying a couple
> of bucks for newsgroup access (monthly or a block account), you will
> have even more choices.
>

OTOH, GG is better than nothing. For tablet and mobile device users,
it'll probably be the preferred option.

On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 08:22:16 -1000, dsi1
> wrote:


>>
>
>OTOH, GG is better than nothing. For tablet and mobile device users,
>it'll probably be the preferred option.

If that is true, I'll never own a tablet. GG is horrid and not worth
the pixels it is printed on.

On 6/17/2012 8:56 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 08:22:16 -1000, dsi1
> > wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>
>> OTOH, GG is better than nothing. For tablet and mobile device users,
>> it'll probably be the preferred option.
>
> If that is true, I'll never own a tablet. GG is horrid and not worth
> the pixels it is printed on.
>

"I'll never own a tablet." Famous last words. Usenet ain't the world, ya
know.

"dsi1" > wrote in message
...
> On 6/17/2012 8:56 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 08:22:16 -1000, dsi1
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> OTOH, GG is better than nothing. For tablet and mobile device users,
>>> it'll probably be the preferred option.
>>
>> If that is true, I'll never own a tablet. GG is horrid and not worth
>> the pixels it is printed on.
>>
>
> "I'll never own a tablet." Famous last words. Usenet ain't the world, ya
> know.
>

Usenet ain't the world? And yet you're here I'll never own a tablet
because I don't choose to walk around carrying a computer. I'd also rather
read actual books so forget about trying to sell me a Kindle.

GG is around because, despite other companies turning off the usenet switch,
it's apparently still alive and well. That doesn't mean GG is good at it.
They just did it because they had to. We aren't going away. Oh no, us
techno-dinosaurs who remember way back...

Jill

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
>
> "dsi1" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 6/17/2012 8:56 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 08:22:16 -1000, dsi1
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> OTOH, GG is better than nothing. For tablet and mobile device users,
>>>> it'll probably be the preferred option.
>>>
>>> If that is true, I'll never own a tablet. GG is horrid and not worth
>>> the pixels it is printed on.
>>>
>>
>> "I'll never own a tablet." Famous last words. Usenet ain't the world, ya
>> know.
>>
>
> Usenet ain't the world? And yet you're here I'll never own a tablet
> because I don't choose to walk around carrying a computer. I'd also
> rather read actual books so forget about trying to sell me a Kindle.
>
> GG is around because, despite other companies turning off the usenet
> switch, it's apparently still alive and well. That doesn't mean GG is
> good at it. They just did it because they had to. We aren't going away.
> Oh no, us techno-dinosaurs who remember way back...
>
> Jill


I like when people call it "Usenet". Reminds me how my mom (who was born in
the 20s) used to write "to-day" with a hyphen. Always with a hyphen.
Someone must have told her when growing up she had to use a hyphen. I don't
think she ever stopped writing it that way.

On 6/17/2012 11:43 PM, jmcquown wrote:
>
> "dsi1" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 6/17/2012 8:56 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 08:22:16 -1000, dsi1
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> OTOH, GG is better than nothing. For tablet and mobile device users,
>>>> it'll probably be the preferred option.
>>>
>>> If that is true, I'll never own a tablet. GG is horrid and not worth
>>> the pixels it is printed on.
>>>
>>
>> "I'll never own a tablet." Famous last words. Usenet ain't the world,
>> ya know.
>>
>
> Usenet ain't the world? And yet you're here I'll never own a tablet
> because I don't choose to walk around carrying a computer. I'd also
> rather read actual books so forget about trying to sell me a Kindle.

If you're implying that Usenet is the world, because I'm here, you might
want to rethink your logic. My guess is that one day you'll eat your
words. I won't have to sell you a thing.

>
> GG is around because, despite other companies turning off the usenet
> switch, it's apparently still alive and well. That doesn't mean GG is
> good at it. They just did it because they had to. We aren't going
> away. Oh no, us techno-dinosaurs who remember way back...

I've never said that the GG interface is perfect. I've never said that
the interface is very good either. I have said that the mobile version
of the new GG has some big problems. OTOH, it's true that for most
tablet users, it's presently the interface we're stuck with.

Computing is changing from the way it's been since the 90s. We're all
going to have to change with it whether we like it or not. It's not
necessary that you believe me. Believing that you won't change seems as
likely to happen as refusing to grow up. As it goes, most of the
dinosaurs were wiped out by a single event. You techno-dinosaurs are
only around as long as the servers remain active. This seems like a slim
thread to hang your world on.

>
> Jill

On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 02:19:35 -1000, dsi1
> wrote:

> I've never said that the GG interface is perfect. I've never said that
> the interface is very good either. I have said that the mobile version
> of the new GG has some big problems. OTOH, it's true that for most
> tablet users, it's presently the interface we're stuck with.

One of the main reasons why I prefer a netbook to a tablet is because
there's no way to access "real" usenet through smaller products. I
want to read it through a real news reader, no GG.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On 6/18/2012 9:08 AM, Sqwertz wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 02:19:35 -1000, dsi1 wrote:
>
>> I've never said that the GG interface is perfect. I've never said that
>> the interface is very good either. I have said that the mobile version
>> of the new GG has some big problems. OTOH, it's true that for most
>> tablet users, it's presently the interface we're stuck with.
>
> What baffles me is why anybody would want to use Usenet when they are
> out and about. Usenet is for when you don't have anything better to
> do. Last thing I want to do is pay $4 for a coffee and sit at
> Starbucks reading Usenet.

I have to agree with you about Usenet. Who needs Usenet on the go? Not
me. Usenet could disappear as I write this and hardly anybody would
notice. OTOH, portability is a vital feature of web-based email. Who
gives a shit if Usenet is portable? I use GG when I'm using a tablet at
home. Thanks for stating the obvious.

>
> But I'd feel so techno-saavy, so I guess that makes t worth it.
> Everybody else there would envy me wondering what I was doing with my
> tablet and wondering how important I must be.
>
>> Computing is changing from the way it's been since the 90s. We're all
>> going to have to change with it whether we like it or not. It's not
>> necessary that you believe me. Believing that you won't change seems as
>> likely to happen as refusing to grow up. As it goes, most of the
>> dinosaurs were wiped out by a single event. You techno-dinosaurs are
>> only around as long as the servers remain active. This seems like a slim
>> thread to hang your world on.
>
> Total diarrhea of the mouth. You really don't have a clue about
> actual technology - all you can do spout out half-assed speculations
> with a few mis-understood buzzwords to make you sound significant.

It's my opinion. If you don't like it, try coming up with an opinion of
your own. All I hear from you is how great old newsreaders are and how
you ain't gonna change. Big deal.

Oh yeah, I'm just going to have to ignore your ass again if you make
another personal remark. Have a nice day! :-)

>
> -sw

dsi1 wrote:
>
> You techno-dinosaurs are
> only around as long as the servers remain active. This seems like a slim
> thread to hang your world on.

It's the dinosaursa that are keeping Usenet going these days. More and
more hobbiests run NNTP servers and give away access. In a sense it's
heading towards how it was in the 1980s with small sites supplying the
access.

On 6/18/2012 11:01 AM, Doug Freyburger wrote:
> dsi1 wrote:
>>
>> You techno-dinosaurs are
>> only around as long as the servers remain active. This seems like a slim
>> thread to hang your world on.
>
> It's the dinosaursa that are keeping Usenet going these days. More and
> more hobbiests run NNTP servers and give away access. In a sense it's
> heading towards how it was in the 1980s with small sites supplying the
> access.

I think that's fine. I don't see anything wrong with the users stepping
up to the plate to preserve their own thing. I used to post on old
bulletin board systems and I thought that was great time. Too bad the
old bulletin boards got overshadowed by Usenet. OTOH, there are a lot of
great web-based forums out there.

sqwishy's rag is on fire again.

> > Oh yeah, I'm just going to have to ignore your ass again if you make
> > another personal remark. Have a nice day! :-)
>
> That's fine (asshole!). I will enjoy pointing out your idiocy and
> making a fool out of you whether you choose to respond or not.

I think you've got the count down to 3 now, sqwish. (That's 3 regular
posters with whom you're not at war.) Are you expecting to reach 0
within days, weeks, or months?

dsi1 wrote:

> I'm interested in ideas and concepts, not people. I'm not interested in
> talking about other people and I'm certainly not interested in talking
> about what you think about me personally.

How tall are you? I can't evaluate your ideas without some idea of
your personal attributes.

On 6/18/2012 12:46 PM, George M. Middius wrote:
> dsi1 wrote:
>
>> I'm interested in ideas and concepts, not people. I'm not interested in
>> talking about other people and I'm certainly not interested in talking
>> about what you think about me personally.
>
> How tall are you? I can't evaluate your ideas without some idea of
> your personal attributes.
>

He he. What a tough life it must be for the guy that takes everything
personally. BTW, I'm a short guy. Some folks think I'm a midget but I
prefer the term "gnome" myself.

On 2012-06-18, dsi1 > wrote:

> that you take things personally. Tough titties. Here's the deal: I ain't
> talking about you.

You fooled me.

nb


--
vi --the heart of evil!
Support labeling GMOs
<http://www.labelgmos.org/>

On 6/18/2012 2:20 PM, notbob wrote:
> On 2012-06-18, > wrote:
>
>> that you take things personally. Tough titties. Here's the deal: I ain't
>> talking about you.
>
> You fooled me.
>
> nb
>
>

I am sorry about this. In my future posts, I will strive to try even
harder to make it obvious that it ain't about you. Thanks for the feedback.

BTW, this ain't about you either.

On 6/18/2012 7:19 AM, dsi1 wrote:
>
> I've never said that the GG interface is perfect. I've never said that
> the interface is very good either. I have said that the mobile version
> of the new GG has some big problems. OTOH, it's true that for most
> tablet users, it's presently the interface we're stuck with.

You're stuck with it only if you don't know how to find a proper
newsreader app for your tablet. There are several such apps for
Android and iOS. Hints: Groundhog, Usenet Reader, NewsTap.

GG isn't Usenet, Usenet isn't GG. Nobody has to use GG to access
Usenet if they'd prefer not to. Not even on a tablet.

On 6/19/2012 11:13 AM, MotoFox wrote:
> And it came to pass that dsi1 delivered the following message unto the
> people, saying~
>
>> I think that's fine. I don't see anything wrong with the users stepping up
>> to the plate to preserve their own thing. I used to post on old bulletin
>> board systems and I thought that was great time. Too bad the old bulletin
>> boards got overshadowed by Usenet. OTOH, there are a lot of great
>> web-based forums out there.
>
> Actually, I think the World Wide Web itself (ugh) kind of overshadowed
> bulletin boards. I seem to recall the $ecret $ervice and the early Clinton
> administration also had a bit to do with it as well. Some of the better
> BBSen "out there" did provide Usenet access, and I think there might be a
> few that still do.
>

One thing's for sure - the WWW pretty much changed the course of human
history and the ability to connect with the world through a computer has
affected every facet of our lives. It's scarey that this one thing could
have changed our lives so significantly in such a short time.

On 2012-06-19, dsi1 > wrote:

> affected every facet of our lives. It's scarey that this one thing could
> have changed our lives so significantly in such a short time.

What's even scarier is how hard and how quickly World govts are trying
to reverse the tide and restrict the internet. Fortunately, the
cork is outta the bottle and they shall never really succeed. They'll
never catch up with ever quickening technology advances that will keep
it free.

nb

--
vi --the heart of evil!
Support labeling GMOs
<http://www.labelgmos.org/>

On 6/19/2012 12:22 PM, notbob wrote:
> On 2012-06-19, > wrote:
>
>> affected every facet of our lives. It's scarey that this one thing could
>> have changed our lives so significantly in such a short time.
>
> What's even scarier is how hard and how quickly World govts are trying
> to reverse the tide and restrict the internet. Fortunately, the
> cork is outta the bottle and they shall never really succeed. They'll
> never catch up with ever quickening technology advances that will keep
> it free.
>
> nb
>

If the US Constitution was written today, the free access of information
on the web might be considered a God-given right.

"sf" > wrote in message
news
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 08:39:50 -1000, dsi1
> > wrote:
>
>> On 6/19/2012 5:09 AM, Hell Toupee wrote:
>> > On 6/18/2012 7:19 AM, dsi1 wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I've never said that the GG interface is perfect. I've never said that
>> >> the interface is very good either. I have said that the mobile version
>> >> of the new GG has some big problems. OTOH, it's true that for most
>> >> tablet users, it's presently the interface we're stuck with.
>> >
>> > You're stuck with it only if you don't know how to find a proper
>> > newsreader app for your tablet. There are several such apps for Android
>> > and iOS. Hints: Groundhog, Usenet Reader, NewsTap.
>> >
>> > GG isn't Usenet, Usenet isn't GG. Nobody has to use GG to access Usenet
>> > if they'd prefer not to. Not even on a tablet.
>>
>> You're certainly right about that - nobody has to use GG to access
>> Usenet, even on a tablet. I just thought NewsTap sucked. I will try
>> Groundhog. Hopefully, it's less sucky.*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *It's just my opinion. Don't come whining to me if you think NewsTap is
>> the bee's knees!
>
> Oh, well <sigh>... I looked all of them up and I thought News Tap had
> the most potential - the other two really sucked (on paper). I *want*
> threading and the ability to mark unread messages "read".

That is all I want (and maybe Killfile capability, but that's not necessary
if you can just mark messages.) Why GG doesn't have threading and let you
mark messages, I don't understand. It's just cumbersome to use as is.

"MotoFox" > wrote in message
...
> And it came to pass that George M. Middius delivered the following message
> unto the people, saying~
>
>> I think you've got the count down to 3 now, sqwish. (That's 3 regular
>> posters with whom you're not at war.) Are you expecting to reach 0 within
>> days, weeks, or months?
>
> Actually it's more like 2--"Sqwishy" was gracious enough to put his sense
> of maturity on display to the entire world by publicly plonking me months
> ago. And yet I haven't returned the favour, since I'm old enough and have
> been around Usenet long enough to actually know better.
>
> Oh well, nobody's perfect.

but some people are less perfect than others.

On 20/06/2012 6:59 AM, MotoFox wrote:
> And it came to pass that Krypsis delivered the following message unto the
> people, saying~
>
>> Google Groups, for better or worse, brought the masses to Usenet. With the
>> decline in ISPs, such as mine recently, wishing to host newsgroups, Google
>> Groups may eventually be the only way to access newsgroups.
>
> Actually AOheLl initially brought "the masses" here, many years before
> G--gl- ever came about. Many claim that we've now moved on to October 1993
> at long last, since AOheLl dropped its Usenet support several years back,
> but G--gl- are really just continuing it. Broadly speaking, the September
> that Never Ended, for all practical purposes, still hasn't ended.
>
> Just saying....
>
AOL never managed to get a foothold in this country, though they did try
very hard. So, for us at least, Google Groups was the beginning of mass
entry to Usenet.

--

Krypsis

On 20/06/2012 12:58 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 06:33:13 +1000, Krypsis wrote:
>
>> Google Groups may eventually be the only way to access newsgroups.
>
> That would be theoretically impossible since the bulk of Google groups
> would not exist if it weren't for those same servers that are
> providing us access from our local news clients. Without those
> servers, it would NOT be Usenet. And without Usenet, the majority of
> existing users will not use the Google interface.
>
> Another clueless idiot.
>
> -sw
>
You apparently, are clueless as Google provides Usenet servers as well.
IIRC, they also host what used to be known as the Usenet archives. They
took over Deja News...

Check this out
---------------------------------------

Kinds of groups hosted by Google

Google provides two distinct kinds of groups: traditional Usenet groups,
and non-Usenet groups that are more similar to mailing lists. The latter
type is accessible only by web or by e-mail, not by NNTP. The Google
Groups user interface and help messages do not use a distinct name for
mailing-list style groups, referring to both styles of group as "Google
Groups."[15]

Google recognizes the X-No-Archive header and displays messages
containing it for only seven days, after which the article becomes no
longer available to the public. Google also recognizes the "-- " Usenet
signature delimiter, and removes the significant space at the end (thus,
proper Usenet signatures can't be added to articles posted via Google
Groups).

-------------------------------------
The above cite from; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Groups


--

Krypsis

On 6/18/2012 8:19 AM, dsi1 wrote:

> Computing is changing from the way it's been since the 90s. We're all
> going to have to change with it whether we like it or not. It's not
> necessary that you believe me. Believing that you won't change seems as
> likely to happen as refusing to grow up. As it goes, most of the
> dinosaurs were wiped out by a single event. You techno-dinosaurs are
> only around as long as the servers remain active. This seems like a slim
> thread to hang your world on.

Nonsense. major OS vendors are still creating newer desktop/laptop OS's
and even if the mobile ones are improving, our usual way of accessing
the web is still alive and well. As long as the "net" has to be a host
to the web, the same is true for us clients. You can choose to be
mobile, some of us can choose to be couch potatoes for probably many years.

On 6/19/2012 4:33 PM, Krypsis wrote:
>>
> Google Groups, for better or worse, brought the masses to Usenet. With
> the decline in ISPs, such as mine recently, wishing to host newsgroups,
> Google Groups may eventually be the only way to access newsgroups.

There are still many news server hosts that probably won't succumb to
google or any other mega hosting empire's decision to stop aggregating
nntp. The number of active groups might decrease but due to the nature
of nntp, any server that wants to receive/send messages will do so.

On 6/18/2012 6:46 PM, George M. Middius wrote:
> dsi1 wrote:
>
>> I'm interested in ideas and concepts, not people. I'm not interested in
>> talking about other people and I'm certainly not interested in talking
>> about what you think about me personally.
>
> How tall are you? I can't evaluate your ideas without some idea of
> your personal attributes.
>
He already told us he has a small penis.

On 6/18/2012 6:44 PM, George M. Middius wrote:
> sqwishy's rag is on fire again.
>
>>> Oh yeah, I'm just going to have to ignore your ass again if you make
>>> another personal remark. Have a nice day! :-)
>>
>> That's fine (asshole!). I will enjoy pointing out your idiocy and
>> making a fool out of you whether you choose to respond or not.
>
> I think you've got the count down to 3 now, sqwish. (That's 3 regular
> posters with whom you're not at war.) Are you expecting to reach 0
> within days, weeks, or months?
>
>
So do you just bow down and not debate anything you're against whether
in print or voice? Debates are healthy. Deciding that you want to
ignore other people's opinion and not state your own is ****ed up. Or
do you just agree with everyone?

On 6/19/2012 9:14 PM, Cheryl wrote:
> On 6/18/2012 8:19 AM, dsi1 wrote:
>
>> Computing is changing from the way it's been since the 90s. We're all
>> going to have to change with it whether we like it or not. It's not
>> necessary that you believe me. Believing that you won't change seems as
>> likely to happen as refusing to grow up. As it goes, most of
>> dinosaurs were wiped out by a single event. You techno-dinosaurs are
>> only around as long as the servers remain active. This seems like a slim
>> thread to hang your world on.
>
> Nonsense. major OS vendors are still creating newer desktop/laptop OS's
> and even if the mobile ones are improving, our usual way of accessing
> the web is still alive and well. As long as the "net" has to be a host
> to the web, the same is true for us clients. You can choose to be
> mobile, some of us can choose to be couch potatoes for probably many years.
>
>

My guess is that most folks will be using tablets and mobile devices
using cell phone based OSes and that desktops will be replaced by
ultraportable type laptops. I know - pretty wacky but that seems to be
the natural progression of things.

On 6/19/2012 5:13 PM, MotoFox wrote:
> And it came to pass that dsi1 delivered the following message unto the
> people, saying~
>
>> I think that's fine. I don't see anything wrong with the users stepping up
>> to the plate to preserve their own thing. I used to post on old bulletin
>> board systems and I thought that was great time. Too bad the old bulletin
>> boards got overshadowed by Usenet. OTOH, there are a lot of great
>> web-based forums out there.
>
> Actually, I think the World Wide Web itself (ugh) kind of overshadowed
> bulletin boards. I seem to recall the $ecret $ervice and the early Clinton
> administration also had a bit to do with it as well. Some of the better
> BBSen "out there" did provide Usenet access, and I think there might be a
> few that still do.
>
If old bbs were the only way other than facebook or google groups, and
Usenet died, I'd choose the old bbs. BBs were my first experience with
connecting with people across the world and I liked it.

"Cheryl" > wrote in message
.com...
> On 6/18/2012 6:46 PM, George M. Middius wrote:
>> dsi1 wrote:
>>
>>> I'm interested in ideas and concepts, not people. I'm not interested in
>>> talking about other people and I'm certainly not interested in talking
>>> about what you think about me personally.
>>
>> How tall are you? I can't evaluate your ideas without some idea of
>> your personal attributes.
>>
> He already told us he has a small penis.


out of small penises, come interesting creations. Even a little one can
beget something special.