From Newsgroup: news.groups

Usenet Big-8 Management Board <board@big-8.org> wrote:

This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to remove the following >unmoderated newsgroup.

comp.unix.user-friendly

As I predicted, they are coming for unmoderated Usenet next.

"I have the power... to issue checkgroups messages."

You have no power. This is meaningless busiwork that will not improve discussion.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

On 10/10/2025 10:32 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Usenet Big-8 Management Board <board@big-8.org> wrote:

This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to remove the following
unmoderated newsgroup.

comp.unix.user-friendly

As I predicted, they are coming for unmoderated Usenet next.

"I have the power... to issue checkgroups messages."

You have no power. This is meaningless busiwork that will not improve discussion.

I am going to give my opinion on removal of groups from what I consider
a non-technical, average user level. I have been a regular on usenet
for somewhere over 25 years. I have grown quite fond of it, though of
course it can drive you nuts.

To me this issue comes down to really only one thing. Cost.
I am not talking about any of the binary groups because I think most administrators can, and do handle that themselves just fine right now.

Many, many times over the years I have gone back to look at or find
something I recall in one group or another. When Google groups
destroyed the Deja News service, it changed many things. Eventually,
it meant the loss of so much of the history I was a part of through interacting in various groups. Some of those years I made friends who I
have met IRL, and done projects with apart from this forum. Sometimes
years ago, I would look at these archives and was amazed at some of the
things I said. Some were quite good, while others horrified me I acted
and thought in the manner I did. The point is, it was all there for me
to see if I wanted. It was useful to me.

With my conspiracy hat on, I think there are two possible reasons for
what Google did, and both are nefarious. Either they let it die because
they were not in control of the discussion to their liking, or the
entire database is still there and being gone over by some government
agency or another looking for things they would deem security issues.
Lord knows we've all seen our share of total nut-jobs here who could
check many boxes in an overzealous security persons notebook. Maybe
google does this themselves. The reason is easy to see. It's the value
of the data, to someone. It was just all worth too much IMHO to simply destroy it. I believe someone still has it all, it's worth something,
and this seems obvious to me.

As Marco likes to posit, that it has been done before, is meaningless to
what I have to say. Just because you CAN do something, obviously does
not mean you SHOULD do something. I really don't care what your BIG-8
rules are that might be guiding this process for you. Ultimately, the
board is now interpreting those rules to go along with their THEORY on
how this all works. I don't like that.

By removing groups, you are no better than Google. You also make the assumption that people are too stupid to figure out on their own whether
or not a group is "active" and worth the time to post. I don't believe
you should have that right. The group in the subject title here is
certainly not controversial. Someone might want to see 10 years from
now what went on in there, or has taken it up as a hobby and wants to
see if anyone else shares the interest. Your actions will make that impossible, and for what??

So, to the cost issue. Obviously storage is not the problem like in
days of old. Unless you know something I don't. If we are not talking
about binary groups at all, I simply don't see how removing anything at
all is really worth a spit in a bucket as far as dollars go. Your
reasons for doing so, as far as I can tell, are all theoretical opinions regarding past into future participation. And we all know opinions are
like ass holes, especially on Usenet. You're hoping your actions will
"help" bring people here. I don't think you should have that power, and
I don't like that you portend people are too stupid to figure it out on
their own, and participate how THEY choose to do so.

The only thing you will accomplish by your purge is the taking away of
the possibility for anyone to see the past history and re-engage if they desire. Those of us who were here 30 years ago I believe all thought
our posts would be here FOREVER. We felt we had a RIGHT to participate
here as long as we followed our provider's TOS. You are no better than
Google when you do things like this. You're destroying history, making assumptions many people won't agree with, and doing something that can't
be undone, and all for a spit in the bucket. Shame on you.
--
Science doesn't support Darwin. Scientists do.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> wrote:

So, to the cost issue. Obviously storage is not the problem like in
days of old. Unless you know something I don't. If we are not
talking about binary groups at all, I simply don't see how removing
anything at all is really worth a spit in a bucket as far as dollars
go. Your reasons for doing so, as far as I can tell, are all
theoretical opinions regarding past into future participation. And we
all know opinions are like ass holes, especially on Usenet. You're
hoping your actions will "help" bring people here. I don't think you
should have that power, and I don't like that you portend people are
too stupid to figure it out on their own, and participate how THEY
choose to do so.

The only thing you will accomplish by your purge is the taking away of
the possibility for anyone to see the past history and re-engage if
they desire. Those of us who were here 30 years ago I believe all
thought our posts would be here FOREVER. We felt we had a RIGHT to participate here as long as we followed our provider's TOS. You are
no better than Google when you do things like this. You're destroying history, making assumptions many people won't agree with, and doing
something that can't be undone, and all for a spit in the bucket.
Shame on you.

+42

I just hope some "revolting" servers will keep them. Can they then be propagated read-/writable among only those?
--
1. Hitchhiker 11: (40) "I won't enjoy it," said Marvin.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

On 05.11.2025 23:20 Uhr yeti wrote:

I just hope some "revolting" servers will keep them. Can they then be propagated read-/writable among only those?

Technically it can. It is just a setting there.
--
kind regards
Marco

Send spam to 1762381244muell@stinkedores.dorfdsl.de

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> wrote:

On 10/10/2025 10:32 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Usenet Big-8 Management Board <board@big-8.org> wrote:

This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to remove the following
unmoderated newsgroup.

comp.unix.user-friendly

As I predicted, they are coming for unmoderated Usenet next.

"I have the power... to issue checkgroups messages."

You have no power. This is meaningless busiwork that will not improve
discussion.

I am going to give my opinion on removal of groups from what I consider
a non-technical, average user level. I have been a regular on usenet
for somewhere over 25 years. I have grown quite fond of it, though of course it can drive you nuts.

To me this issue comes down to really only one thing. Cost.
I am not talking about any of the binary groups because I think most administrators can, and do handle that themselves just fine right now.

Many, many times over the years I have gone back to look at or find something I recall in one group or another. When Google groups
destroyed the Deja News service, it changed many things. Eventually,
it meant the loss of so much of the history I was a part of through interacting in various groups. Some of those years I made friends who I have met IRL, and done projects with apart from this forum. Sometimes
years ago, I would look at these archives and was amazed at some of the things I said. Some were quite good, while others horrified me I acted
and thought in the manner I did. The point is, it was all there for me
to see if I wanted. It was useful to me.

With my conspiracy hat on, I think there are two possible reasons for
what Google did, and both are nefarious. Either they let it die because they were not in control of the discussion to their liking, or the
entire database is still there and being gone over by some government
agency or another looking for things they would deem security issues.
Lord knows we've all seen our share of total nut-jobs here who could
check many boxes in an overzealous security persons notebook. Maybe
google does this themselves. The reason is easy to see. It's the value
of the data, to someone. It was just all worth too much IMHO to simply destroy it. I believe someone still has it all, it's worth something,
and this seems obvious to me.

As Marco likes to posit, that it has been done before, is meaningless to what I have to say. Just because you CAN do something, obviously does
not mean you SHOULD do something. I really don't care what your BIG-8
rules are that might be guiding this process for you. Ultimately, the
board is now interpreting those rules to go along with their THEORY on
how this all works. I don't like that.

By removing groups, you are no better than Google. You also make the assumption that people are too stupid to figure out on their own whether
or not a group is "active" and worth the time to post. I don't believe
you should have that right. The group in the subject title here is certainly not controversial. Someone might want to see 10 years from
now what went on in there, or has taken it up as a hobby and wants to
see if anyone else shares the interest. Your actions will make that impossible, and for what??

So, to the cost issue. Obviously storage is not the problem like in
days of old. Unless you know something I don't. If we are not talking about binary groups at all, I simply don't see how removing anything at
all is really worth a spit in a bucket as far as dollars go. Your
reasons for doing so, as far as I can tell, are all theoretical opinions regarding past into future participation. And we all know opinions are
like ass holes, especially on Usenet. You're hoping your actions will "help" bring people here. I don't think you should have that power, and
I don't like that you portend people are too stupid to figure it out on their own, and participate how THEY choose to do so.

The only thing you will accomplish by your purge is the taking away of
the possibility for anyone to see the past history and re-engage if they desire. Those of us who were here 30 years ago I believe all thought
our posts would be here FOREVER. We felt we had a RIGHT to participate
here as long as we followed our provider's TOS. You are no better than Google when you do things like this. You're destroying history, making assumptions many people won't agree with, and doing something that can't
be undone, and all for a spit in the bucket. Shame on you.

Nicely said! I couldn't agree more. Usenet is not just sort of
communication channel/technology. It has history. It is history.
History of communication, history of free speech online, history
of Internet.
--
Best regards,
DrunkenThon.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> wrote:

On 05.11.2025 23:20 Uhr yeti wrote:

I just hope some "revolting" servers will keep them. Can they then be >>propagated read-/writable among only those?

Technically it can. It is just a setting there.

News administrators, not hierarchy administrators, run Usenet.

Nothing about pruning the checkgroups will bring new discussion nor new
users to Usenet.

Marco has his own opinion. He has no interest in hearing why purging checkgroups is irrelevant, a meaningless, futile gesture.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

DrunkenThon <drunkenthon@gmail.com> wrote:

Nicely said! I couldn't agree more. Usenet is not just sort of
communication channel/technology. It has history. It is history.
History of communication, history of free speech online, history
of Internet.

Usenet servers are NOT archives. Usenet archives are archives. Usenet
servers do not keep messages indefinitely and some don't keep them very
long at all. Removing dead newsgroups from operating servers should NOT
affect historical archives in any way.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

On 11/6/2025 11:12 AM, DrunkenThon wrote:

sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> wrote:

On 10/10/2025 10:32 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Usenet Big-8 Management Board <board@big-8.org> wrote:

This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to remove the following
unmoderated newsgroup.

comp.unix.user-friendly

As I predicted, they are coming for unmoderated Usenet next.

"I have the power... to issue checkgroups messages."

You have no power. This is meaningless busiwork that will not improve
discussion.

I am going to give my opinion on removal of groups from what I consider
a non-technical, average user level. I have been a regular on usenet
for somewhere over 25 years. I have grown quite fond of it, though of
course it can drive you nuts.

To me this issue comes down to really only one thing. Cost.
I am not talking about any of the binary groups because I think most
administrators can, and do handle that themselves just fine right now.

Many, many times over the years I have gone back to look at or find
something I recall in one group or another. When Google groups
destroyed the Deja News service, it changed many things. Eventually,
it meant the loss of so much of the history I was a part of through
interacting in various groups. Some of those years I made friends who I
have met IRL, and done projects with apart from this forum. Sometimes
years ago, I would look at these archives and was amazed at some of the
things I said. Some were quite good, while others horrified me I acted
and thought in the manner I did. The point is, it was all there for me
to see if I wanted. It was useful to me.

With my conspiracy hat on, I think there are two possible reasons for
what Google did, and both are nefarious. Either they let it die because
they were not in control of the discussion to their liking, or the
entire database is still there and being gone over by some government
agency or another looking for things they would deem security issues.
Lord knows we've all seen our share of total nut-jobs here who could
check many boxes in an overzealous security persons notebook. Maybe
google does this themselves. The reason is easy to see. It's the value
of the data, to someone. It was just all worth too much IMHO to simply
destroy it. I believe someone still has it all, it's worth something,
and this seems obvious to me.

As Marco likes to posit, that it has been done before, is meaningless to
what I have to say. Just because you CAN do something, obviously does
not mean you SHOULD do something. I really don't care what your BIG-8
rules are that might be guiding this process for you. Ultimately, the
board is now interpreting those rules to go along with their THEORY on
how this all works. I don't like that.

By removing groups, you are no better than Google. You also make the
assumption that people are too stupid to figure out on their own whether
or not a group is "active" and worth the time to post. I don't believe
you should have that right. The group in the subject title here is
certainly not controversial. Someone might want to see 10 years from
now what went on in there, or has taken it up as a hobby and wants to
see if anyone else shares the interest. Your actions will make that
impossible, and for what??

So, to the cost issue. Obviously storage is not the problem like in
days of old. Unless you know something I don't. If we are not talking
about binary groups at all, I simply don't see how removing anything at
all is really worth a spit in a bucket as far as dollars go. Your
reasons for doing so, as far as I can tell, are all theoretical opinions
regarding past into future participation. And we all know opinions are
like ass holes, especially on Usenet. You're hoping your actions will
"help" bring people here. I don't think you should have that power, and
I don't like that you portend people are too stupid to figure it out on
their own, and participate how THEY choose to do so.

The only thing you will accomplish by your purge is the taking away of
the possibility for anyone to see the past history and re-engage if they
desire. Those of us who were here 30 years ago I believe all thought
our posts would be here FOREVER. We felt we had a RIGHT to participate
here as long as we followed our provider's TOS. You are no better than
Google when you do things like this. You're destroying history, making
assumptions many people won't agree with, and doing something that can't
be undone, and all for a spit in the bucket. Shame on you.

Nicely said! I couldn't agree more. Usenet is not just sort of
communication channel/technology. It has history. It is history.
History of communication, history of free speech online, history
of Internet.

---Scott then said the following having quoted only Thon's part---

Usenet servers are NOT archives. Usenet archives are archives. Usenet servers do not keep messages indefinitely and some don't keep them very
long at all. Removing dead newsgroups from operating servers should NOT affect historical archives in any way.

I have placed your response to Thon after his response to me so I can
show more to where I am coming from. As I said, the reality of how much
is retained by individual administrators is ultimately cost. Your
response, though technically true, completely avoids the possible
alternative outcomes when you consider costs. Also, as stated above
they do not mitigate them at all. It is said it is being done to
attract people to Usenet.

When drives and even bandwidth were crazy expensive, of course the
amount retained had to be controlled. You fail to consider that may not
be a problem in the future whatsoever. If control messages are sent to
remove group something, how would future participants ever know it
existed in the first place if it doesn't appear in their groups list?

We can only wish for now, but there may come a day when someone, or even groups of someone's decide to try and get all available group history
and make them available because the cost factor has been mitigated. If
the board decides to remove them, they've effectively taken away the
option and the usability for anyone who wishes to look for it.

You and Marco may be fine with this, but I am not. While you say that removing what you call dead newsgroups should NOT affect historical
archives in any way, you are wrong. You will take a currently
"inactive" group and MAKE it dead. It then cannot be undone, the
destruction would be complete with no way to undo the damage. For what?
--
Science doesn't support Darwin. Scientists do.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

sticks wrote:
...

We can only wish for now, but there may come a day when someone, or even groups of someone's decide to try and get all available group history
and make them available because the cost factor has been mitigated.-a If
the board decides to remove them, they've effectively taken away the
option and the usability for anyone who wishes to look for it.

You and Marco may be fine with this, but I am not.-a While you say that removing what you call dead newsgroups should NOT affect historical
archives in any way, you are wrong.-a You will take a currently
"inactive" group and MAKE it dead.-a It then cannot be undone, the destruction would be complete with no way to undo the damage.-a For what?

You are beating a place in the road where there was once a horse.

I brought up this issue early in the mass-removal RFD. My comments were
even summarized in a 2nd RFD. The Board has made up its mind; it is a
waste of time to appeal to their idea of history and its value.

You ask . . . For what? My answer is that "The Board", whatever it
actually means these days, needs to justify its existence. The days are
long gone when Usenet needs any hierarchy administration. Removing or
adding newsgroups at this point in its history is a make-work activity.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

In article <10f04t4$vr1c$1@dont-email.me>, Steve Bonine <spb@pobox.com> wrote: >The Board has made up its mind; it is a waste of time to appeal

to their idea of history and its value.

Any sort of effort put into critiquing changes to the active
newsgroups file on the basis that there isn't a good enough archive
should be put into improving the archive situation. (Hint to those
unaware: There are already some public archives... archive.org,
narkive....)

And trying to insist that active nntp reading hosts act as archives
will only hinder real archives. (Where are current nntp hosts even
supposed to get the old articles? Now answer that question for the
real archives! But not here....)

Removing or adding newsgroups at this point in its history is a
make-work activity.

The thing about this illogical criticism is that people who
aren't interested in this activity needn't participate, particularly
when they consider it pointless....

Sorry to be blunt, but I think some of the old-timers here really
do not know what new people setting up news servers want. This
technology is not dead.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

Todd M. McComb <mccomb@medieval.org> wrote:

Steve Bonine <spb@pobox.com> wrote:

The Board has made up its mind; it is a waste of time to appeal
to their idea of history and its value.

Any sort of effort put into critiquing changes to the active
newsgroups file on the basis that there isn't a good enough archive
should be put into improving the archive situation. (Hint to those
unaware: There are already some public archives... archive.org,
narkive....)

And trying to insist that active nntp reading hosts act as archives
will only hinder real archives. (Where are current nntp hosts even
supposed to get the old articles? Now answer that question for the
real archives! But not here....)

My argument has never been about archiving but that someone might wish
to test the waters to see if he can get on-topic discussion going.

Removing or adding newsgroups at this point in its history is a
make-work activity.

The thing about this illogical criticism

And... there it is. The Board must be insulated from all criticism,
hence its refusal to hold configging discussions in the unmoderated
newsgroup. ANY criticism of the Board has been deemed to be "illogical",
in advance.

The Board and its supporters simply declared victory. Their
justifications -- This will save Usenet! Users don't like to wade
through a long checkgroups or group list to figure out where to post nd
to find activity! -- have never been supported by proper arguments, only handwaiving.

I run this place! I'm right! You're wrong! I win!

Knock off the hypocrisy. That's the act peraent does in alt.checkmate
and other groups. Let's just make him hierarchy administrator.

is that people who
aren't interested in this activity needn't participate, particularly
when they consider it pointless....

Sorry to be blunt, but I think some of the old-timers here really
do not know what new people setting up news servers want. This
technology is not dead.

Gosh. No News administrator has ever been required to process
checkgroups. The issue is, if he creates a group on a specific topic and
a group for that topic is listed in checkgroups, then that's the
canonical name of the group so that articles may be exchanged.

News administrators run Usenet, not hierarchy administrators. If they
care about purging newsgroups lacking recent on topic discussion, they
don't need the Board's permission to do so.

They don't work for the Board. The Board needs to get over itself.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

In article <10f0ao8$114jl$1@dont-email.me>,
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

My argument has never been about archiving but that someone might
wish to test the waters to see if he can get on-topic discussion
going.

See below.

The Board must be insulated from all criticism,

Not all criticism is illogical. "This is a waste of time, but I
must comment anyway" criticism is illogical.

... never been supported by proper arguments, only handwaiving.

Join the club, buddy. But I've generally agreed with your posts
about people needing existing traffic, and expressed interest in a
group, to create a viable group. Yet you don't think something like
that applies to new servers looking at groups without posts for
20 years? Oh right, it's up the admins....

News administrators run Usenet, not hierarchy administrators. ....
They don't work for the Board.

This is exactly where you are wrong about this situation. News
administrators (both "institutional" & "newbie") have long requested
to have a better active file. Others are, as you say, free to
ignore.

In other words, the Board is doing this work for admins.

And for those who want better archives, see my comments about
archives.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

Todd M. McComb <mccomb@medieval.org> wrote:

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

My argument has never been about archiving but that someone might
wish to test the waters to see if he can get on-topic discussion
going.

See below.

The Board must be insulated from all criticism,

Not all criticism is illogical. "This is a waste of time, but I
must comment anyway" criticism is illogical.

It's unmoderated Usenet. No, the Board cannot have its mind changed once
it's on a power trip, but that doesn't mean a user wouldn't comment.
Don't tell people what to post.

... never been supported by proper arguments, only handwaiving.

Join the club, buddy. But I've generally agreed with your posts
about people needing existing traffic, and expressed interest in a
group, to create a viable group. Yet you don't think something like
that applies to new servers looking at groups without posts for
20 years?

No. I don't think that's how the hierarchy should be administered. If a
News administrator doesn't wish to offer such groups, he can do what he
likes.

Oh right, it's up the admins....

News administrators run Usenet, not hierarchy administrators. ....
They don't work for the Board.

This is exactly where you are wrong about this situation. News >administrators (both "institutional" & "newbie") have long requested
to have a better active file. Others are, as you say, free to
ignore.

In other words, the Board is doing this work for admins.

And for those who want better archives, see my comments about
archives.

Ok.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

On Fri, 10 Oct 2025 15:32:11 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Usenet Big-8 Management Board <board@big-8.org> wrote:

This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to remove the following >>unmoderated newsgroup.

comp.unix.user-friendly

As I predicted, they are coming for unmoderated Usenet next.

They shouldn't do this, especially to newsgroups that are still relevant. Despite AT&T UNIX may not be used much at least outside telephone industry
(I talked to a telephone technician saying they still use old UNIX
systems) there's still 'genetic UNIX' (*BSD ((Open)Solaris, MacOS)), UNIX clones including certified UNIX (POSIX). Besides computer programmers/ scientists focusing on genetic UNIX, the idea of certified UNIX is still significant with more OS trying to adhere to it than not. Whoever is
trying to do this simply seems like a heavy-handed censor.

I'd say same for most/all other UNIX newsgroup removal requests.
Depending how much those telephone people still use, sys5 UNIX newsgroups
may be relevant; some genetic UNIX still adhere to that style (Solaris, OpenSolaris/Illumos). BSD is Free/Libre/Opensource Software (FLS, OSS,
FOSS, FLOSS) people still use/read that source code, though might be time
to replace the 386 group with n86 (today implying n86_64). I still also
have a P3/686 (more for classic games, graphics/music demonstrations) and
know people who also have old PCs.

"I have the power... to issue checkgroups messages."

You have no power. This is meaningless busiwork that will not improve discussion.

It'll silence discussion. Is that what they really want; what's the
agenda here?
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

On Nov 16, 2025 at 1:22:03rC>PM CST, "David Chmelik" <dchmelik@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 10 Oct 2025 15:32:11 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Usenet Big-8 Management Board <board@big-8.org> wrote:

This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to remove the following
unmoderated newsgroup.

comp.unix.user-friendly

As I predicted, they are coming for unmoderated Usenet next.

They shouldn't do this, especially to newsgroups that are still relevant. Despite AT&T UNIX may not be used much at least outside telephone industry
(I talked to a telephone technician saying they still use old UNIX
systems) there's still 'genetic UNIX' (*BSD ((Open)Solaris, MacOS)), UNIX clones including certified UNIX (POSIX). Besides computer programmers/ scientists focusing on genetic UNIX, the idea of certified UNIX is still significant with more OS trying to adhere to it than not. Whoever is
trying to do this simply seems like a heavy-handed censor.

I'd say same for most/all other UNIX newsgroup removal requests.
Depending how much those telephone people still use, sys5 UNIX newsgroups
may be relevant; some genetic UNIX still adhere to that style (Solaris, OpenSolaris/Illumos). BSD is Free/Libre/Opensource Software (FLS, OSS,
FOSS, FLOSS) people still use/read that source code, though might be time
to replace the 386 group with n86 (today implying n86_64). I still also
have a P3/686 (more for classic games, graphics/music demonstrations) and know people who also have old PCs.

"I have the power... to issue checkgroups messages."

You have no power. This is meaningless busiwork that will not improve
discussion.

It'll silence discussion. Is that what they really want; what's the
agenda here?

How many UNIX-related discussion groups are enough? Let's see what we have today:

root@spool1:/usr/local/news/db # grep unix active | wc -l
219

root@spool1:/usr/local/news/db # grep unix active | egrep '^comp.' | wc -l
48

In my active file there are 219 groups containing the term "unix" and 48 of those within comp.*.

You'll have no trouble locating a group to post about whatever UNIX variant
you like, even without the three groups that are proposed to be removed.

What possible topic are you interested in posting about that would not fit
into one of the other 216 groups about UNIX?
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

Jesse Rehmer <jesse.rehmer@blueworldhosting.com> wrote:

Nov 16, 2025 at 1:22:03 PM CST, David Chmelik <dchmelik@gmail.com> wrote: >>Fri, 10 Oct 2025 15:32:11 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Usenet Big-8 Management Board <board@big-8.org> wrote:

This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to remove the following >>>>unmoderated newsgroup.

comp.unix.user-friendly

As I predicted, they are coming for unmoderated Usenet next.

They shouldn't do this, especially to newsgroups that are still relevant. >>Despite AT&T UNIX may not be used much at least outside telephone industry >>(I talked to a telephone technician saying they still use old UNIX
systems) there's still 'genetic UNIX' (*BSD ((Open)Solaris, MacOS)), UNIX >>clones including certified UNIX (POSIX). Besides computer programmers/ >>scientists focusing on genetic UNIX, the idea of certified UNIX is still >>significant with more OS trying to adhere to it than not. Whoever is >>trying to do this simply seems like a heavy-handed censor.

I'd say same for most/all other UNIX newsgroup removal requests.
Depending how much those telephone people still use, sys5 UNIX newsgroups >>may be relevant; some genetic UNIX still adhere to that style (Solaris, >>OpenSolaris/Illumos). BSD is Free/Libre/Opensource Software (FLS, OSS, >>FOSS, FLOSS) people still use/read that source code, though might be time >>to replace the 386 group with n86 (today implying n86_64). I still also >>have a P3/686 (more for classic games, graphics/music demonstrations) and >>know people who also have old PCs.

"I have the power... to issue checkgroups messages."

You have no power. This is meaningless busiwork that will not improve >>>discussion.

It'll silence discussion. Is that what they really want; what's the
agenda here?

How many UNIX-related discussion groups are enough?

Gosh, I sure don't know. How many false premeses do we need to support
this RFD with preordained outcome before it was published?

I'd say zero, but you and the other supporters disagree.

This RFD has nothing to do with addressing need nor improving
discussion.

It has to do with magical thinking -- if the Board recognizes fewer
groups, then magically, we'll have sustainable discussion in the few
groups that remain.

That's not how it works. That's not how anything works. I cannot pound
the clue through your 20,000 SRF skulls that throwing the remaining deck
chairs over the side of the Titanic will not keep the ship afloat.

We have a crisis! We must be seen as doing something! Let's recognize
fewer newsgroups!

It's about as effective as deciding to have a tuna fish sandwich as the solution to famine in Ethiopia.

. . .

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

In article <10fdeoa$dab7$2@dont-email.me>,
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

It has to do with magical thinking -- if the Board recognizes fewer
groups, then magically, we'll have sustainable discussion in the
few groups that remain.

Pointless & harmful are, of course, different things.

But speaking of magical thinking, imagine if a proponent came here
to create one of these groups now:

"There's no discussion on Usenet, and hasn't been for 20 years.
There's no one expressing an interest in the topic. However, I
feel like if we create the group, someone might come along someday
and have something to say. After all, it's an important topic."

One can imagine your response.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

It has to do with magical thinking -- if the Board recognizes fewer
groups, then magically, we'll have sustainable discussion in the few
groups that remain.

No one has ever said this. If anything, it's a matter of "since there
is so little sustainable discussion, let us take this opportunity to
clean things up." Nobody thinks that by eliminating groups we will
encourage more use of existing groups. But eliminating groups that
aren't used makes Usenet less messy.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

Todd M. McComb <mccomb@medieval.org> wrote:

"There's no discussion on Usenet, and hasn't been for 20 years.
There's no one expressing an interest in the topic. However, I
feel like if we create the group, someone might come along someday
and have something to say. After all, it's an important topic."

One can imagine your response.

Obviously we need rec.ponds and sci.ponds both.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

Todd M. McComb <mccomb@medieval.org> wrote:

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

It has to do with magical thinking -- if the Board recognizes fewer
groups, then magically, we'll have sustainable discussion in the
few groups that remain.

Pointless & harmful are, of course, different things.

Harmful? You're arguing by making stuff up?

But speaking of magical thinking, imagine if a proponent came here
to create one of these groups now:

"There's no discussion on Usenet, and hasn't been for 20 years.
There's no one expressing an interest in the topic. However, I
feel like if we create the group, someone might come along someday
and have something to say. After all, it's an important topic."

One can imagine your response.

You don't have to imagine. I'd make fun of the Board, which hasn't
failed to newgroup a proposal in years.

Rmgroups and newgroups are different things.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:

Todd M. McComb <mccomb@medieval.org> wrote:

"There's no discussion on Usenet, and hasn't been for 20 years.
There's no one expressing an interest in the topic. However, I
feel like if we create the group, someone might come along someday
and have something to say. After all, it's an important topic."

One can imagine your response.

Obviously we need rec.ponds and sci.ponds both.

The massive troll proposal that led to newgrouping news.groups.proposals (Moderated) was rec.ponds.moderated.

I don't recall sci.ponds, sorry. Was that a tale thing?
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

It has to do with magical thinking -- if the Board recognizes fewer
groups, then magically, we'll have sustainable discussion in the few
groups that remain.

No one has ever said this.

The hell they haven't.

If anything, it's a matter of "since there
is so little sustainable discussion, let us take this opportunity to
clean things up." Nobody thinks that by eliminating groups we will
encourage more use of existing groups. But eliminating groups that
aren't used makes Usenet less messy.

I'm a slob. If you're so determined, I'll do you the favor of allowing
you to straighten up my house. I have papers piled up on tables that
have needed filing for a long time.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

In article <10febg6$kfa9$1@dont-email.me>,
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

Harmful? You're arguing by making stuff up?

Perhaps it can be noted then that you do not find these proposals
to be harmful.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

Todd M. McComb <mccomb@medieval.org> wrote:

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

Harmful? You're arguing by making stuff up?

Perhaps it can be noted then that you do not find these proposals
to be harmful.

Todd, I'll make my own comments.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

In article <10febso$kfa9$2@dont-email.me>,
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:

Todd M. McComb <mccomb@medieval.org> wrote:

"There's no discussion on Usenet, and hasn't been for 20 years.
There's no one expressing an interest in the topic. However, I
feel like if we create the group, someone might come along someday
and have something to say. After all, it's an important topic."

One can imagine your response.

Obviously we need rec.ponds and sci.ponds both.

The massive troll proposal that led to newgrouping news.groups.proposals >(Moderated) was rec.ponds.moderated.

I don't recall sci.ponds, sorry. Was that a tale thing?

That was how the whole mess began. I think it was Sexton who was demanding
it be in the sci. hierarchy and most people were demanding it be under rec. and some people were against it entirely and that was before the whole moderation argument began. It was perhaps the most drawn out and ludicrous battle in Usenet history and prefigured the modern online trolling we see today.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

In article <10fegvk$lt4h$1@dont-email.me>,
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

Todd M. McComb <mccomb@medieval.org> wrote:

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

Harmful? You're arguing by making stuff up?

Perhaps it can be noted then that you do not find these proposals
to be harmful.

Todd, I'll make my own comments.

You have not, I will point out, ever said they were harmful, merely that
they were ineffective at doing something that people didn't claim they
would do.

They are in fact ineffective at doing that thing, but that does not seem
any argument against them.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

Todd M. McComb <mccomb@medieval.org> wrote:

In article <10f04t4$vr1c$1@dont-email.me>, Steve Bonine <spb@pobox.com> wrote:

Any sort of effort put into critiquing changes to the active
newsgroups file on the basis that there isn't a good enough archive
should be put into improving the archive situation. (Hint to those
unaware: There are already some public archives... archive.org,
narkive....)

Amen! This is a real issue, the lack of proper uniform archives that are readily available and that have enough publicity that people know to search them when they are looking for older technical information.

And trying to insist that active nntp reading hosts act as archives
will only hinder real archives. (Where are current nntp hosts even
supposed to get the old articles? Now answer that question for the
real archives! But not here....)

I think that this is a belief that people acquired from Google, which
attempted to blur the lines between active groups, archives, Usenet,
and their own proprietary messaging service. This was a disaster in
general and would result in people posting replies to 30-year-old
messages thinking that they were replying to something recent. I sold
that audio preamp card back in 1990, guys; it's not for sale any more and you can stop replying to that for-sale ad.

Sorry to be blunt, but I think some of the old-timers here really
do not know what new people setting up news servers want. This
technology is not dead.

It's mostly dead, and that's a shame, but that's no reason not to keep maintaining it properly.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

In article <10ffiep$74a$1@panix2.panix.com>,
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:

In article <10febso$kfa9$2@dont-email.me>,
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

I don't recall sci.ponds, sorry. Was that a tale thing?

That was how the whole mess began. I think it was Sexton ....

sci.aquaria. Yes, a Richard Sexton party.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

In article <10ffis1$5co$1@panix2.panix.com>,
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:

It's mostly dead, and that's a shame, but that's no reason not to
keep maintaining it properly.

There isn't nearly the discussion on the old public Usenet hierarchies
as there used to be. However, the technology is still being updated
(with new nntp server software being created in fact...) & installed,
sometimes for private hierarchies, etc.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:

In article <10febso$kfa9$2@dont-email.me>,
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:

Todd M. McComb <mccomb@medieval.org> wrote:

"There's no discussion on Usenet, and hasn't been for 20 years.
There's no one expressing an interest in the topic. However, I
feel like if we create the group, someone might come along someday
and have something to say. After all, it's an important topic."

One can imagine your response.

Obviously we need rec.ponds and sci.ponds both.

The massive troll proposal that led to newgrouping news.groups.proposals >>(Moderated) was rec.ponds.moderated.

I don't recall sci.ponds, sorry. Was that a tale thing?

That was how the whole mess began. I think it was Sexton who was demanding >it be in the sci. hierarchy and most people were demanding it be under rec. >and some people were against it entirely and that was before the whole >moderation argument began. It was perhaps the most drawn out and ludicrous >battle in Usenet history and prefigured the modern online trolling we see >today.

Thank you for the history.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

Todd M. McComb <mccomb@medieval.org> wrote:

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

Harmful? You're arguing by making stuff up?

Perhaps it can be noted then that you do not find these proposals
to be harmful.

Todd, I'll make my own comments.

You have not, I will point out, ever said they were harmful, merely that
they were ineffective at doing something that people didn't claim they
would do.

The claim is right in one of Marco's RFDs:

I propose to delete groups that are not used well and to direct
the people to more general groups like comp.unix.misc in case
they want to discuss the topics they special groups covered.

They are in fact ineffective at doing that thing, but that does not seem
any argument against them.

And yet there are actual arguments against performing busywork as a
power trip because one must be seen as doing something regardless of the
fact that the problem hasn't been addressed.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

In article <10ffmke$9pg$1@hope.eyrie.org>,
Todd M. McComb <mccomb@medieval.org> wrote:

In article <10ffiep$74a$1@panix2.panix.com>,
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:

In article <10febso$kfa9$2@dont-email.me>,
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

I don't recall sci.ponds, sorry. Was that a tale thing?

That was how the whole mess began. I think it was Sexton ....

sci.aquaria. Yes, a Richard Sexton party.

As crossposted to misc.test,comp.arch, and God only knows where else.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

The claim is right in one of Marco's RFDs:

I propose to delete groups that are not used well and to direct
the people to more general groups like comp.unix.misc in case
they want to discuss the topics they special groups covered.

I'm sorry, but I don't interpret this as anything like you claim. I
do not see that directing people to other more general groups is going to somehow increase total traffic, and I don't see Marco saying that here.

And yet there are actual arguments against performing busywork as a
power trip because one must be seen as doing something regardless of the
fact that the problem hasn't been addressed.

There is more than just one problem. I agree with you that there is a big problem that is not being sufficiently addressed, but I disagree that this
is an attempt to address it.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

The claim is right in one of Marco's RFDs:

I propose to delete groups that are not used well and to direct
the people to more general groups like comp.unix.misc in case
they want to discuss the topics they special groups covered.

I'm sorry, but I don't interpret this as anything like you claim. I
do not see that directing people to other more general groups is going to >somehow increase total traffic, and I don't see Marco saying that here.

Not TOTAL traffic. He suggests that posters to groups that are not well
used will instead post in other groups, increasing the participation in remaining groups.

Authors cannot be redirected just because somebody wants to reorganize
Usenet. It doesn't work like that.

In any event, the groups proposed for rmgrouping aren't in this category
in the first place as they have lacked on-topic discussion for years.

And yet there are actual arguments against performing busywork as a
power trip because one must be seen as doing something regardless of the >>fact that the problem hasn't been addressed.

There is more than just one problem. I agree with you that there is a big >problem that is not being sufficiently addressed, but I disagree that this
is an attempt to address it.

For the 2723rd time, they aren't pretending to address any important problem. They are instead doing something that is within their power, to show
they have this power. It's a distraction.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

In Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0611261351080.30481@qbbshf.puvarg.pbz>
on 11/26/06 2:17 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

I have the example of the Haskell group and 10s of thousands of
useless alt groups on my side. Poorly used or unused groups
are harmful to discussion on Usenet, contrary to the rationale
that certain proponents give (that if the narrow topic isn't
in the group name, it cannot be discussed on Usenet)
because users may be discouraged from looking for
discussion elsewhere.

"Poorly used or unused groups are harmful to discussion
on Usenet"

What led you to change your opinion since 19 years?

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

On Fri, 12 Dec 2025 09:35:29 EST, <dog_cow@macgui.com> wrote:
snip

Poorly used or unused groups are harmful to discussion on Usenet,

"Poorly used or unused groups are harmful to discussion on Usenet"
What led you to change your opinion since 19 years?

back in the day usenet _was_ popular for discussion, but that usage
gradually tapered off under the troll farm invasion circa 1994, and
lurkers, researchers etc. gradually became usenet's silent majority,
especially since about 2003, ever since which the troll farm became
more than 99% of activity in active newsgroups, and by now 99.9999%

so lurkers, researchers, etc., may freely browse, find, read, study,
articles and threads, making read-only servers, with long retention
for searching, filtering, to winnow the usenet grain from the chaff,
with usenet's burgeoning repository readily available to the public,
the clear advantage of uncensored expression in this otherwise vast
ocean of usenet occupation under the militarised psyops(troll farm)

so usenet is not conducive to substantive dialogue but is primarily
used as a public repository for free uncensored expression, so that
lurkers and researchers may find useful articles still being posted,
and many which have been posted to newsgroups in the productive era,
e.g. 1981 (this server allows posting, tor, "maildrop" registration)

(using Tor Browser 15.0.2) https://rocksolid-us.pugleaf.net/groups/net.bugs.2bsd/threads?page=5

...
"holes" in directories
By: pur-eebruner on Fri, 11 Dec 1981 21:19 43 Years 10 Months ago >https://rocksolid-us.pugleaf.net/groups/net.bugs.2bsd/thread/1
"holes" in directories
#1
Author: pur-eebruner
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1981 21:19
55 lines
2279 bytes

We discovered a particularly nasty problem with the way that UNIX
handles directories when cleaning up a bad system crash. A "hole"
(region where no blocks are allocated) was created in /usr/tmp.
"fsck" reported no unusual errors, but when we attempted to touch
the inside of this directory (e.g. with "ls") we had all sorts of
errors from our disc driver.

snip

--John Bruner

Thread Navigation
This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.
Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.
Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads. >...

[end quoted excerpt]

(using Tor Browser 15.0.2)
https://newsdeef.eu/

...
(read only) lux-feed1.newsdeef.eu :119 :563
* Text retention: 198x - 2025
+ TOR1: pp55dzqem2eufe2wst2u7lunqhs3pkryzrleikrixl2xuvblyeqyg4qd.onion:119
+ TOR2: 3nxvtk6l6fvjel6egccgo5zcerivvvz27ahsdjthvxc7focidpr2xlyd.onion:119
+ username: usenet
+ password: archive
+ Update: 2025-09-03 :: Rate Limits applied.
+ Do not open more than 3 connections.

(read only) 81-171-22-215.pugleaf.net :119 :563
* Text retention: 198x - 2025
+ username: usenet
+ password: archive

[end quoted excerpt]

recommend: newsdeef, blueworld, csiph, paganini, netfront, etc.
for reliable servers with longer and complete article retention,
(and the 40tude dialog newsreader for best search, filter, etc.)

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

D Finnigan <dog_cow@macgui.com> wrote:

11/26/06 2:17 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

I have the example of the Haskell group and 10s of thousands of
useless alt groups on my side. Poorly used or unused groups
are harmful to discussion on Usenet, contrary to the rationale
that certain proponents give (that if the narrow topic isn't
in the group name, it cannot be discussed on Usenet)
because users may be discouraged from looking for
discussion elsewhere.

"Poorly used or unused groups are harmful to discussion
on Usenet"

What led you to change your opinion since 19 years?

Arguing against a newgroup is different than arguing in favor of a
rmgroup.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

D Finnigan <dog_cow@macgui.com> wrote:

"Poorly used or unused groups are harmful to discussion
on Usenet"

What led you to change your opinion since 19 years?

In general I disagree. But I sure wish we could finally get rid of alt.hairy-douchebag.meredith-tanner after all these years. And I
think Meredith will probably agree.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

Scott Dorsey wrote:

D Finnigan <dog_cow@macgui.com> wrote:

"Poorly used or unused groups are harmful to discussion
on Usenet"

What led you to change your opinion since 19 years?

In general I disagree. But I sure wish we could finally get rid of alt.hairy-douchebag.meredith-tanner after all these years. And I
think Meredith will probably agree.
--scott

It occurs to me that "Poorly used or unused groups are harmful to
discussion on Usenet" does not imply "Removing poorly used or unused
groups will revive Usenet".
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

In article <10hl11q$ig4s$1@dont-email.me>, Steve Bonine <spb@pobox.com> wrote: >It occurs to me that "Poorly used or unused groups are harmful to

discussion on Usenet" does not imply "Removing poorly used or unused
groups will revive Usenet".

It most certainly does not. I don't think anyone actually believes that somehow doing routine maintenance like removing dead groups is going to suddenly revive Usenet. But I also think that stopping routine maintenance
on the grounds that it won't revive Usenet is foolish.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:

In article <10hl11q$ig4s$1@dont-email.me>, Steve Bonine <spb@pobox.com> wrote:

It occurs to me that "Poorly used or unused groups are harmful to >>discussion on Usenet" does not imply "Removing poorly used or unused >>groups will revive Usenet".

It most certainly does not. I don't think anyone actually believes that somehow doing routine maintenance like removing dead groups is going to suddenly revive Usenet. But I also think that stopping routine maintenance on the grounds that it won't revive Usenet is foolish.

But it's not routine. They're starting this alleged "maintenance",
not stopping it.
--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote at 18:32 this Saturday (GMT):

D Finnigan <dog_cow@macgui.com> wrote:

"Poorly used or unused groups are harmful to discussion
on Usenet"

What led you to change your opinion since 19 years?

In general I disagree. But I sure wish we could finally get rid of alt.hairy-douchebag.meredith-tanner after all these years. And I
think Meredith will probably agree.
--scott

I thought alt.* newsgroups weren't controlled by the Big 8 guys.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote: >Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote at 18:32 this Saturday (GMT):

D Finnigan <dog_cow@macgui.com> wrote:

"Poorly used or unused groups are harmful to discussion
on Usenet"

What led you to change your opinion since 19 years?

In general I disagree. But I sure wish we could finally get rid of >>alt.hairy-douchebag.meredith-tanner after all these years. And I
think Meredith will probably agree.

I thought alt.* newsgroups weren't controlled by the Big 8 guys.

Shhhh

We let them believe they run the universe.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

On Fri, 19 Dec 2025 12:05:35 -0500, candycanearter07 wrote:

Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote at 18:32 this Saturday (GMT):

D Finnigan <dog_cow@macgui.com> wrote:

"Poorly used or unused groups are harmful to discussion on Usenet"

What led you to change your opinion since 19 years?

In general I disagree. But I sure wish we could finally get rid of
alt.hairy-douchebag.meredith-tanner after all these years. And I think
Meredith will probably agree.
--scott

I thought alt.* newsgroups weren't controlled by the Big 8 guys.

They're not, that's another reason why marcos attempts is absolutely pointless.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote: >Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote at 18:32 this Saturday (GMT):

D Finnigan <dog_cow@macgui.com> wrote:

"Poorly used or unused groups are harmful to discussion
on Usenet"

What led you to change your opinion since 19 years?

In general I disagree. But I sure wish we could finally get rid of
alt.hairy-douchebag.meredith-tanner after all these years. And I
think Meredith will probably agree.

I thought alt.* newsgroups weren't controlled by the Big 8 guys.

They are not, which is why the aforementioned newgroup is still sticking around.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2