Adam H. Kerman wrote:
[...]
you and your socks may create as many spamtraps
as you like.
Spam?
The spam left when google did.
Schlomo Goldberg <schlomo.goldberg@mailinator.com> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> writes:
Although now that I look, comp.infosystems.* is a thing, but >>>alt.comp.infosystems.* is not. Proposed alt.* groups shouldn't be named >>>to skip a hierarchy level.
Is such rule written somewhere?
There it is, written.
On 2024-12-12, William Stickers <bill.stickers@innocent.com> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman wrote:
[...]
you and your socks may create as many spamtraps
as you like.
Spam?
The spam left when google did.
Some newsgroups contain post and spam.
Some newsgroups contian only spam.
You propose a newsgroup that won't even contain spam.
I have to admit, the idea has the merit of originality.
But forging a mailbox at innocent.com lacks even that merit.
On 2024-10-11, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Schlomo Goldberg <schlomo.goldberg@mailinator.com> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> writes:
Although now that I look, comp.infosystems.* is a thing, but >>>alt.comp.infosystems.* is not. Proposed alt.* groups shouldn't be named >>>to skip a hierarchy level.
Is such rule written somewhere?
There it is, written.
I agree with the rule as written, which makes it unanimous among all surviving alt.configgers who have any plausible claim to be taken
seriously. And the threshhold for being taken seriously here is loooow!
Any newsgroup you newgroup will be useless at best, harmful at worst.
Why not enjoy participating in existing newsgroups instead?
Peter J Ross wrote:
On 2024-12-12, William Stickers <bill.stickers@innocent.com> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman wrote:
[...]
you and your socks may create as many spamtraps
as you like.
Spam?
The spam left when google did.
Some newsgroups contain post and spam.
Some newsgroups contian only spam.
You propose a newsgroup that won't even contain spam.
I didn't propose any newsgroup.
I have to admit, the idea has the merit of originality.
But forging a mailbox at innocent.com lacks even that merit.
Email me, it's a valid addy. I'll reply.
Peter J Ross wrote:
On 2024-10-11, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Schlomo Goldberg <schlomo.goldberg@mailinator.com> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> writes:
Although now that I look, comp.infosystems.* is a thing, but
alt.comp.infosystems.* is not. Proposed alt.* groups shouldn't be named >> >>>to skip a hierarchy level.
Is such rule written somewhere?
There it is, written.
I agree with the rule as written, which makes it unanimous among all
surviving alt.configgers who have any plausible claim to be taken
seriously. And the threshhold for being taken seriously here is loooow!
Any newsgroup you newgroup will be useless at best, harmful at worst.
Why not enjoy participating in existing newsgroups instead?
Funny.
Did you happen to notice the result of the recent UK Usenet Committee Election?
Or this <https://individual.net/>?
Most sane usenetters have fucked off, leaving only a few diehard
participants and a shit load of nutters that have no where else to go.
I was thinking it might be good to have a group for discussions of the >fediverse (mastodon, pixelfed, et. al.) that is not on the fediverse
itself.
I was thinking about alt.comp.infosystems.fediverse
Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
I was thinking it might be good to have a group for discussions of the
fediverse (mastodon, pixelfed, et. al.) that is not on the fediverse
itself.
I was thinking about alt.comp.infosystems.fediverse
If other people agree that the discussion should take place on Usenet,
then you'll be able to find the discussion already taking place on
Usenet. Discussion first, then decide if there's a need for a group. A dedicated group for discussion no one wants will fail.
On 4/4/2024 12:13 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
I was thinking it might be good to have a group for discussions of the
fediverse (mastodon, pixelfed, et. al.) that is not on the fediverse
itself.
I was thinking about alt.comp.infosystems.fediverse
If other people agree that the discussion should take place on Usenet,
then you'll be able to find the discussion already taking place on
Usenet. Discussion first, then decide if there's a need for a group. A
dedicated group for discussion no one wants will fail.
That's why I'm asking here you know?
On 4/4/2024 12:13 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
I was thinking it might be good to have a group for discussions of the
fediverse (mastodon, pixelfed, et. al.) that is not on the fediverse
itself.
I was thinking about alt.comp.infosystems.fediverse
If other people agree that the discussion should take place on Usenet,
then you'll be able to find the discussion already taking place on
Usenet. Discussion first, then decide if there's a need for a group. A
dedicated group for discussion no one wants will fail.
That's why I'm asking here you know?
Kyonshi wrote:
On 4/4/2024 12:13 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
I was thinking it might be good to have a group for discussions of the >>>>fediverse (mastodon, pixelfed, et. al.) that is not on the fediverse >>>>itself.
I was thinking about alt.comp.infosystems.fediverse
If other people agree that the discussion should take place on Usenet, >>>then you'll be able to find the discussion already taking place on >>>Usenet. Discussion first, then decide if there's a need for a group. A >>>dedicated group for discussion no one wants will fail.
That's why I'm asking here you know?
What i understand Mr. Kerman to be saying is that newsgroups are only >created if people are already discussing the topic of the newsgroup _in >existing newsgroups_.
Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Kyonshi wrote:
On 4/4/2024 12:13 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
I was thinking it might be good to have a group for discussions of the >>>>> fediverse (mastodon, pixelfed, et. al.) that is not on the fediverse >>>>> itself.
I was thinking about alt.comp.infosystems.fediverse
If other people agree that the discussion should take place on Usenet, >>>> then you'll be able to find the discussion already taking place on
Usenet. Discussion first, then decide if there's a need for a group. A >>>> dedicated group for discussion no one wants will fail.
That's why I'm asking here you know?
What i understand Mr. Kerman to be saying is that newsgroups are only
created if people are already discussing the topic of the newsgroup _in
existing newsgroups_.
No. You misunderstood entirely. What I said is quoted above and doesn't require reinterpretation.
No. You misunderstood entirely. What I said is quoted above and doesn't require reinterpretation.
On 4/5/2024 7:19 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Kyonshi wrote:
On 4/4/2024 12:13 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
I was thinking it might be good to have a group for discussions of the >>>>>>fediverse (mastodon, pixelfed, et. al.) that is not on the fediverse >>>>>>itself.
I was thinking about alt.comp.infosystems.fediverse
If other people agree that the discussion should take place on Usenet, >>>>>then you'll be able to find the discussion already taking place on >>>>>Usenet. Discussion first, then decide if there's a need for a group. A >>>>>dedicated group for discussion no one wants will fail.
That's why I'm asking here you know?
What i understand Mr. Kerman to be saying is that newsgroups are only >>>created if people are already discussing the topic of the newsgroup _in >>>existing newsgroups_.
No. You misunderstood entirely. What I said is quoted above and doesn't >>require reinterpretation.
I dunno, it seemed to cover what you were saying.
Maybe it's not a problem with other people misunderstanding you, maybe
it's more about you not expressing yourself in a way that can be
understood.
Adam H. Kerman wrote:
No. You misunderstood entirely. What I said is quoted above and doesn't >>require reinterpretation.
Communication is not a one-way street.
Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/5/2024 7:19 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Kyonshi wrote:
On 4/4/2024 12:13 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
I was thinking it might be good to have a group for discussions of the >>>>>>fediverse (mastodon, pixelfed, et. al.) that is not on the fediverse >>>>>>itself.
I was thinking about alt.comp.infosystems.fediverse
If other people agree that the discussion should take place on Usenet, >>>>>then you'll be able to find the discussion already taking place on >>>>>Usenet. Discussion first, then decide if there's a need for a group. A >>>>>dedicated group for discussion no one wants will fail.
That's why I'm asking here you know?
What i understand Mr. Kerman to be saying is that newsgroups are only >>>created if people are already discussing the topic of the newsgroup _in >>>existing newsgroups_.
No. You misunderstood entirely. What I said is quoted above and doesn't >>require reinterpretation.
I dunno, it seemed to cover what you were saying.
Maybe it's not a problem with other people misunderstanding you, maybe >it's more about you not expressing yourself in a way that can be >understood.
Listen to me. I've been observing new newsgroups for decades in alt.*,
the Big 8, and certain regional hierarchies. Every proponent thinks his
idea for a newsgroup is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Let me
assure you that it is not. I always tell proponents what they need to
know, not what they want to hear.
Your proposed newsgroup will fail due to the difficulty of overcoming ignorance and apathy.
Any idiot can send a control message, which is exactly the position I
took with llp several months ago when he was complaining about cancel messages in the fr.* hierarchy. I've always taken this position in alt.*
with respect to newgroup messages. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. Newgroup messages are archived FOREVER. It's your name and reputation, and the initial newgroup message controls, so don't royally
fuck up the syntax.
Even though a newgroup message is a type of control message, it doesn't control shit. It does not create a newsgroup. That is done one server at
a time. alt.* and free.* are unadministered hierarchies. That means the proponent posts the newgroup message as there is no hierarchy
administrator and no checkgroups for a canonical list of newsgroups.
But that's just an initial step. Your newgroup message hasn't created a newsgroup because newsgroups in unadministered hierarchies on any
well-used server are not created without user request. Then you have the problem of syntax. You might get the Control header correct but screw up
the Newsgroups file line wrong or leave it out entirely. That means the
test newsgroups and active files at ftp.isc.org won't get updated and
the newgroup message won't get processed at News sites that require a Newsgroups file line.
But say you don't fuck up syntax.
Who the hell wants this newsgroup aside from you? No one on Usenet. Newsgroups aren't for people in the real world who don't use Usenet.
They are for Usenet users to better organize discussion.
There can be exceptions, like an institution shutting down its News
server for customer support and its users deciding to use Usenet
instead. That's an exceptional circumstance.
In the absense of discussion on Usenet, a newsgroup in and of itself
doesn't create discussion. Won't happen. Never has.
"But there's no place to post!" Of course there is. Usenet is filled
with empty newsgroups, in the thousands. Thousands and thousands and thousands of proponents have gone before you whose new groups have
failed. There are failures in administered hierarchies too.
The worst proponents are the ones with an idea for a newsgroup but who themselves are not well known for discussing the topic on Usenet.
If you are truly serious about getting discussion of Fediverse going on Usenet, then it's up to YOU to start some. Post in the newsgroup that's closest to the topic. Find what other discussion on Usenet that there is
and encourage people to discuss it in the newsgroup you found. Using an existing newsgroup has the advantage that it's already created on many
News servers.
If you don't have SUSTAINABLE discussion of a topic over a recent 90 day period of 10 articles a day (that would be 900 articles), then there is
no need for the newsgroup you propose and it will fail. SUSTAINABLE discussion IS NOT CROSSPOSTED. It IS NOT articles reposted from the Web.
It means articles ON TOPIC written by Usenet users using their own
words. It means a root article together with on topic followups.
If a thread doesn't develop, then that article wasn't discussed.
What I've said will not make you happy but it's what you need to know.
But if you don't care about starting a newsgroup that won't fail, if you don't care about your own reputation, and you somehow believe that
getting that newgroup message archived at ftp.isc.org has given you a
taste of immortality, sure, go ahead. No one will prevent you from
sending a newgroup message.
It would sure be nice if you were one of those rare proponents who cared about making sure the topic was being well discussed on Usenet first.
Don't join the tens of thousands of idiot proponents who have gone
before you.
Adam H. Kerman wrote:
No. You misunderstood entirely. What I said is quoted above and doesn't require reinterpretation.
Communication is not a one-way street.
. . .
Seriously, Adam, what's the point? There's over a hundred thousand
empty froups. No one is going to notice another one. It just doesn't
matter any more. If I could find a swerver that would accept a control >message I'd send the newgroup for him because one more empty froup if
it isn't used makes no difference at all. The golden days are gone.
Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Cute troll there with the selective quoting to remove context.
No. You misunderstood entirely. What I said is quoted above and doesn't >>>require reinterpretation.
Communication is not a one-way street.
Take your feathers out of your ears and listen. Don't talk over the
other person. You'll have a much easier time understanding what has been said.
Reinterpretation of what someone else wrote to obliterate meaning isn't communication, bird. It's trolling.
Blue-Maned_Hawk wrote:
Adam H. Kerman wrote:
No. You misunderstood entirely. What I said is quoted above and
doesn't require reinterpretation.
Communication is not a one-way street.
Your X-Face is borked.
William Stickers wrote:
Blue-Maned_Hawk wrote:
Adam H. Kerman wrote:
No. You misunderstood entirely. What I said is quoted above and
doesn't require reinterpretation.
Communication is not a one-way street.
Your X-Face is borked.
No, it's meant to be that.
William Stickers <bill.stickers@innocent.com> wrote:
. . .
Seriously, Adam, what's the point? There's over a hundred thousand
empty froups. No one is going to notice another one. It just doesn't
matter any more. If I could find a swerver that would accept a control >message I'd send the newgroup for him because one more empty froup if
it isn't used makes no difference at all. The golden days are gone.
Not making things worse ALWAYS matters. Doing it right ALWAYS matters.
Please don't hijack the proposal. He didn't request this.
The first failed newsgroup made Usenet worse. The first proponent who
wanted a very narrow newsgroup just because he didn't want to post in a broader newsgroup and wasn't discussing the topic harmed Usenet.
Of course it's always mattered whether anyone is discussing the topic.
Are we here for discussion, or are we here to make empty froups?
Adam H. Kerman wrote:
William Stickers <bill.stickers@innocent.com> wrote:
. . .
Seriously, Adam, what's the point? There's over a hundred thousand
empty froups. No one is going to notice another one. It just doesn't >>>matter any more. If I could find a swerver that would accept a control >>>message I'd send the newgroup for him because one more empty froup if
it isn't used makes no difference at all. The golden days are gone.
Not making things worse ALWAYS matters. Doing it right ALWAYS matters.
Please don't hijack the proposal. He didn't request this.
The first failed newsgroup made Usenet worse. The first proponent who >>wanted a very narrow newsgroup just because he didn't want to post in a >>broader newsgroup and wasn't discussing the topic harmed Usenet.
Of course it's always mattered whether anyone is discussing the topic.
Are we here for discussion, or are we here to make empty froups?
I don't disagree with your sentiments. IMO if more people had cared a lot >sooner maybe it wouldn't be nearly dead now. Nearly all the groups that
went through the proper process are dead and it's not down to the proper >process being or not being followed, it's mainly down to trolling from the >likes of altopia and spam from google. They're gone now having done their >damage, but it is what it is and there is no fixing it. A thousand more
dead froups is gonna make no difference to it now. I don't want to hijack >this, I just wanted to say I can't see what difference it makes any more.
William Stickers <bill.stickers@innocent.com> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman wrote:
William Stickers <bill.stickers@innocent.com> wrote:
. . .
Seriously, Adam, what's the point? There's over a hundred thousand >>>empty froups. No one is going to notice another one. It just doesn't >>>matter any more. If I could find a swerver that would accept a control >>>message I'd send the newgroup for him because one more empty froup if >>>it isn't used makes no difference at all. The golden days are gone.
Not making things worse ALWAYS matters. Doing it right ALWAYS matters.
Please don't hijack the proposal. He didn't request this.
The first failed newsgroup made Usenet worse. The first proponent who >>wanted a very narrow newsgroup just because he didn't want to post in a >>broader newsgroup and wasn't discussing the topic harmed Usenet.
Of course it's always mattered whether anyone is discussing the topic. >>Are we here for discussion, or are we here to make empty froups?
I don't disagree with your sentiments. IMO if more people had cared a lot >sooner maybe it wouldn't be nearly dead now. Nearly all the groups that >went through the proper process are dead and it's not down to the proper >process being or not being followed, it's mainly down to trolling from the >likes of altopia and spam from google. They're gone now having done their >damage, but it is what it is and there is no fixing it. A thousand more >dead froups is gonna make no difference to it now. I don't want to hijack >this, I just wanted to say I can't see what difference it makes any more.
The advantage of alt.* over the Big 8 is that there are no hoops to jump through. We have a suggested format for the newgroup message that
includes no boilerplate at all.
Sometimes we recommend alt.* or the Big 8 depending on how groups for
similar topics were named, just to make it easier to find.
(There is no "we" as most others have lost interest in configging discussion.)
But the process on Usenet has always been about finding and promoting discussion of the topic. Whether the proponent or the hierarchy
administrator sends the newgroup is irrelevant to whether the topic is
being discussed or whether it will be discussed in future.
That's been the nature of Usenet since the beginning.
It's all about discussion and promoting discussion. Being a decent
proponent is actual work. Such people are rarities.
Blue-Maned_Hawk wrote:
William Stickers wrote:
Blue-Maned_Hawk wrote:
Adam H. Kerman wrote:
No. You misunderstood entirely. What I said is quoted above and
doesn't require reinterpretation.
Communication is not a one-way street.
Your X-Face is borked.
No, it's meant to be that.
It looks like Picasso has thrown up. What's it meant to be?
William Stickers wrote:
Blue-Maned_Hawk wrote:
William Stickers wrote:
Blue-Maned_Hawk wrote:
Adam H. Kerman wrote:
No. You misunderstood entirely. What I said is quoted above and
doesn't require reinterpretation.
Communication is not a one-way street.
Your X-Face is borked.
No, it's meant to be that.
It looks like Picasso has thrown up. What's it meant to be?
?Look? closer.
I was thinking it might be good to have a group for discussions of the fediverse (mastodon, pixelfed, et. al.) that is not on the fediverse
itself.
I was thinking about alt.comp.infosystems.fediverse
Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
I was thinking it might be good to have a group for discussions of the >>fediverse (mastodon, pixelfed, et. al.) that is not on the fediverse >>itself.
I was thinking about alt.comp.infosystems.fediverse
I second that! Although just calling it alt.fediverse might even
work better.
Is it a good idea to write a more formal proposal?
See for for example the message Re:
"New group proposal: alt.os.cpv" on this newsgroup,
Message-ID: <tc9aur$1390i$1@dont-email.me>.
lkh <lkh@sdf-eu.org> wrote:
Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
I was thinking it might be good to have a group for discussions of the >>>fediverse (mastodon, pixelfed, et. al.) that is not on the fediverse >>>itself.
I was thinking about alt.comp.infosystems.fediverse
I second that! Although just calling it alt.fediverse might even
work better.
There is no need for a new second-level hierarchy. Let it be named to
fit in with similar newsgroups.
Although now that I look, comp.infosystems.* is a thing, but alt.comp.infosystems.* is not. Proposed alt.* groups shouldn't be named
to skip a hierarchy level.
If that's the name Kyonshi wants, then put it into the Big 8.
Is it a good idea to write a more formal proposal?
See for for example the message Re:
"New group proposal: alt.os.cpv" on this newsgroup,
Message-ID: <tc9aur$1390i$1@dont-email.me>.
Of course there should be a proposal in good form.
I think it would be a good idea for the proponent to look carefully at
where the discussion of Fediverse is taking place and to count it. As
always, we're looking for an average of 10 articles a day over a recent 90-day period, articles that people write themselves and hopefully start threads, not reposted from the Web. Too few articles a day, the group
will be a spamtrap and there won't be enough sustainable discussion.
On 2024-06-09, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
lkh <lkh@sdf-eu.org> wrote:
Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
I was thinking it might be good to have a group for discussions of the >>>>fediverse (mastodon, pixelfed, et. al.) that is not on the fediverse >>>>itself.
I was thinking about alt.comp.infosystems.fediverse
I second that! Although just calling it alt.fediverse might even
work better.
There is no need for a new second-level hierarchy. Let it be named to
fit in with similar newsgroups.
Although now that I look, comp.infosystems.* is a thing, but >>alt.comp.infosystems.* is not. Proposed alt.* groups shouldn't be named
to skip a hierarchy level.
(Please don't leave out the ".comp.infosystems." part, otherwise that'd
make it a poor fit in a hierarchy that has a lot of groups, plus,
there'll certainly be other infosystem-related groups.)
If that's the name Kyonshi wants, then put it into the Big 8.
Is it a good idea to write a more formal proposal?
See for for example the message Re:
"New group proposal: alt.os.cpv" on this newsgroup,
Message-ID: <tc9aur$1390i$1@dont-email.me>.
Of course there should be a proposal in good form.
I think it would be a good idea for the proponent to look carefully at >>where the discussion of Fediverse is taking place and to count it. As >>always, we're looking for an average of 10 articles a day over a recent >>90-day period, articles that people write themselves and hopefully start >>threads, not reposted from the Web. Too few articles a day, the group
will be a spamtrap and there won't be enough sustainable discussion.
I don't know if I've asked about this before, but: in which other groups
are such discussions happening right now? I might try to follow one or
two.
Maybe to help keep this topic (eventually creating a USENET group) in--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2
"one place" on the fediverse too, if anyone else is going to comment on
this there, please consider trying to thread it under Kyonshi's Mastodon
post [1], if your fediverse medium supports some sort of threading
relative to Mastodon posts.
[1] https://dice.camp/@kyonshi/112213176617773138
Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Cute troll there with the selective quoting to remove context.
I removed the content that was irrelevant to where the topic has now drifted.
No. You misunderstood entirely. What I said is quoted above and doesn't >>>>require reinterpretation.
Communication is not a one-way street.
Take your feathers out of your ears and listen. Don't talk over the
other person. You'll have a much easier time understanding what has been
said.
Talking over another person is difficult in the naturally asynchronous Usenet.
Reinterpretation of what someone else wrote to obliterate meaning isn't
communication, bird. It's trolling.
If there was any re|>nterpretation on my part, it was completely unintentional. I'm not sure why you immediately assumed that it _would_
be intentional; would you please explain that?
Although now that I look, comp.infosystems.* is a thing, but alt.comp.infosystems.* is not. Proposed alt.* groups shouldn't be named
to skip a hierarchy level.
Adam H. Kerman wrote:
William Stickers <bill.stickers@innocent.com> wrote:
. . .
Seriously, Adam, what's the point? There's over a hundred thousand
empty froups. No one is going to notice another one. It just doesn't
matter any more. If I could find a swerver that would accept a control
message I'd send the newgroup for him because one more empty froup if
it isn't used makes no difference at all. The golden days are gone.
Not making things worse ALWAYS matters. Doing it right ALWAYS matters.
Please don't hijack the proposal. He didn't request this.
The first failed newsgroup made Usenet worse. The first proponent who
wanted a very narrow newsgroup just because he didn't want to post in a
broader newsgroup and wasn't discussing the topic harmed Usenet.
Of course it's always mattered whether anyone is discussing the topic.
Are we here for discussion, or are we here to make empty froups?
I don't disagree with your sentiments.
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> writes:
Although now that I look, comp.infosystems.* is a thing, but >>alt.comp.infosystems.* is not. Proposed alt.* groups shouldn't be named
to skip a hierarchy level.
Is such rule written somewhere?
William Stickers <bill.stickers@innocent.com> writes:
Adam H. Kerman wrote:
William Stickers <bill.stickers@innocent.com> wrote:
. . .
Seriously, Adam, what's the point? There's over a hundred thousand
empty froups. No one is going to notice another one. It just doesn't
matter any more. If I could find a swerver that would accept a control >>> >message I'd send the newgroup for him because one more empty froup if
it isn't used makes no difference at all. The golden days are gone.
Not making things worse ALWAYS matters. Doing it right ALWAYS matters.
Please don't hijack the proposal. He didn't request this.
The first failed newsgroup made Usenet worse. The first proponent who
wanted a very narrow newsgroup just because he didn't want to post in a
broader newsgroup and wasn't discussing the topic harmed Usenet.
Of course it's always mattered whether anyone is discussing the topic.
Are we here for discussion, or are we here to make empty froups?
I don't disagree with your sentiments.
I disagree with his sentiments.
Adam is stuck in early 90s. In 2024, newsgroups are nothing more than
tags. Applying a "fediverse" tag to a post about fediverse don't "create >failed newsgroup", it just helps interested parties to find this >converstation (and other similar conversations). No one cares how many
tags there are. They should be created automatically based on Newsgroups >header and disappear when all posts are long gone. I would support
keeping permanent list of tags based on historical newsgroups, but
basically yeah, "creating a newsgroup" is no different than applying a
tag to a post.
Don't know why Adam is still pretending that it's a big deal.
you and your socks may create as many spamtraps
as you like.
Spam?
The spam left when google did.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 65 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 04:18:34 |
| Calls: | 862 |
| Files: | 1,311 |
| D/L today: |
921 files (14,318M bytes) |
| Messages: | 264,528 |