From Newsgroup: news.groups

Rayner Lucas <usenet202101@magic-cookie.co.ukNOSPAMPLEASE> wrote:

. . .

OK, so the important point is that sites won't list the group as one
that can be viewed or subscribed to, making the group history
inaccessible unless one knows that the group existed and seeks out a >provider that keeps non-current groups available in some form? Have I >understood correctly?

That's a misstatement, still.

The hierarchy administrator works for or on behalf of the News administrator, not the other way around. The only thing the hierarchy administrator
does is provide a list of newsgroups in a checkgroups.

For the 3,423rd time, the News administrator is under no obligation to
process checkgroups or any other control message issued by the hierarchy administrator. However, if he does create a newsgroup on a particular
topic, then he should use the canonical name from checkgroups.

Stop overinflating the power that a hierarchy administrator has. As
Usenet is a distributed medium of communication, that would be none at
all. Marco and the rest of you refuse to accept this, hence this endless harrangue.

Go set up a Web forum, for you fail to appreciate Usenet for what its advantages are over other methods of mass communication. None of you
belongs here.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

On 05.12.2025 17:41 Uhr Adam H. Kerman wrote:

The only thing the hierarchy administrator
does is provide a list of newsgroups in a checkgroups.

For the 3,423rd time, the News administrator is under no obligation to process checkgroups or any other control message issued by the
hierarchy administrator. However, if he does create a newsgroup on a particular topic, then he should use the canonical name from
checkgroups.

Stop overinflating the power that a hierarchy administrator has. As
Usenet is a distributed medium of communication, that would be none at
all. Marco and the rest of you refuse to accept this, hence this
endless harrangue.

On one side you say the news server admin is not obligated to process
the control messages, so he can just ignore them.
On the other side you complain because hierarchy administrators
(multiple of them exist for various hierarchies) change the list of
newsgroups the server admin is not obligated to process.

That doesn't fit together.
--
kind regards
Marco

Send spam to 1764952907muell@stinkedores.dorfdsl.de

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> wrote:

On 05.12.2025 17:41 Uhr Adam H. Kerman wrote:

The only thing the hierarchy administrator
does is provide a list of newsgroups in a checkgroups.

For the 3,423rd time, the News administrator is under no obligation to >>process checkgroups or any other control message issued by the
hierarchy administrator. However, if he does create a newsgroup on a >>particular topic, then he should use the canonical name from
checkgroups.

Stop overinflating the power that a hierarchy administrator has. As
Usenet is a distributed medium of communication, that would be none at
all. Marco and the rest of you refuse to accept this, hence this
endless harrangue.

On one side you say the news server admin is not obligated to process
the control messages, so he can just ignore them.
On the other side you complain because hierarchy administrators
(multiple of them exist for various hierarchies) change the list of >newsgroups the server admin is not obligated to process.

That doesn't fit together.

I don't care for your behavior, Marco.

I'm criticizing YOU because this is a configging discussion. Your
behavior and your specious justicifactions are the topic of discussion.

The extent to which a News administrator acts on your control messages
is not at issue nor is it subject to criticism. His server, his rules.
He presents Usenet to his users as he sees fit.

I've explained this to you many times in the past, and will continue to
do so in future. You will continue to ignore me in future as you have in
the past.

A hierarchy administrator's role on Usenet is different than that of a
News administrator. It's far less important.

You refuse to accept that Usenet is distributed and not centrally
administered. I question your continuing presence here since you fail
to appreciate that this is Usenet's beauty despite how messy the group
list may be.

Go set up a Web forum where you'll have the control you seek. Leave
Usenet to those of us who enjoy it for what it is.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

On 05.12.2025 19:54 Uhr Adam H. Kerman wrote:

I don't care for your behavior, Marco.

Then feel free to ignore my posts. Certain readers have filter
functionality. Your freedom to use them.

I'm criticizing YOU because this is a configging discussion. Your
behavior and your specious justicifactions are the topic of
discussion.

The initial topic was the RfC - some people do not want to talk about
the actual content, but heavily disagree with the hierarchy
administration. That's ok for me, but why is that a problem for you?

If you do not want to apply the control messages (that are only
suggestions on a technical viewpoint), why do you even care about them?

The extent to which a News administrator acts on your control messages
is not at issue nor is it subject to criticism. His server, his rules.

Fine, so they don't need to care about that messages at all if they
like.

He presents Usenet to his users as he sees fit.

Fine, so why do those people even bother when a control message is sent?

I've explained this to you many times in the past, and will continue
to do so in future.

Its nothing new, it is an old discussion with repeating arguments from
the same people.

You will continue to ignore me in future as you have in the past.

Is that a problem for you?

A hierarchy administrator's role on Usenet is different than that of a
News administrator. It's far less important.

Fine, then feel free to ignore all hierarchy admins and their control
messages.

You refuse to accept that Usenet is distributed and not centrally administered.

Well, you seem to ignore that certain hierarchies were created to have
some central administration and most server operators actually process
the messages (check their current available groups and compare them
with checkgroups or look into the innreport statistics).
This doesn't change the fact that every operator can choose what to do.

I question your continuing presence here since you fail to appreciate
that this is Usenet's beauty despite how messy the group list may be.

Certain people do not refer a list full of unused stuff as a beauty.
Although, that viewpoint might differ.
--
kind regards
Marco

Send spam to 1764960877muell@stinkedores.dorfdsl.de

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> wrote:

On 05.12.2025 19:54 Uhr Adam H. Kerman wrote:

I don't care for your behavior, Marco.

Then feel free to ignore my posts. Certain readers have filter
functionality. Your freedom to use them.

You don't get this lack of power thing, do you Marco. I decide what to
read and what to comment on, not you. Welcome to inmoderated Usenet.

I'm criticizing YOU because this is a configging discussion. Your
behavior and your specious justicifactions are the topic of
discussion.

The initial topic was the RfC - some people do not want to talk about
the actual content, but heavily disagree with the hierarchy
administration. That's ok for me, but why is that a problem for you?

The RFC is a statement of what you already decided to do. It's about
your behavior.

I've been around Usenet a lot longer than you, and I am uninterested in
your misrepresentations and your closed mind. I'm not prentending with
you here.

If you do not want to apply the control messages (that are only
suggestions on a technical viewpoint), why do you even care about them?

Once again, your behavior is the issue in a configging discussion.

The extent to which a News administrator acts on your control messages
is not at issue nor is it subject to criticism. His server, his rules.

Fine, so they don't need to care about that messages at all if they
like.

I doubt very much that you accept this reality.

He presents Usenet to his users as he sees fit.

Fine, so why do those people even bother when a control message is sent?

Because that is the topic of discussion.

I've explained this to you many times in the past, and will continue
to do so in future.

Its nothing new, it is an old discussion with repeating arguments from
the same people.

Your own arguments in justfication are specious.

You will continue to ignore me in future as you have in the past.

Is that a problem for you?

No. I have no problem making comments. You're the one objecting that I
might make comments.

A hierarchy administrator's role on Usenet is different than that of a
News administrator. It's far less important.

Fine, then feel free to ignore all hierarchy admins and their control >messages.

Telling me what to read and what to post again, are we?

You refuse to accept that Usenet is distributed and not centrally >>administered.

Well, you seem to ignore that certain hierarchies were created to have
some central administration

It's shameful that you misrepresent Usenet like that.

and most server operators actually process
the messages (check their current available groups and compare them
with checkgroups or look into the innreport statistics).
This doesn't change the fact that every operator can choose what to do.

Thanks for proving my point that you refuse to accept that checkgroups
isn't central administration.

I question your continuing presence here since you fail to appreciate
that this is Usenet's beauty despite how messy the group list may be.

Certain people do not refer a list full of unused stuff as a beauty. >Although, that viewpoint might differ.

You can't argue to save your life. Nice straw man there, Marco.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

In article <20251205213718.66580afc@ryz.dorfdsl.de>,
Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> wrote:

Fine, then feel free to ignore all hierarchy admins and their control >messages.

Perhaps for the purposes of this discussion, it would be helpful
to enumerate the various concerns regarding which updating the Big8
checkgroups list is irrelevant. I'll start with a few off the top
of my head:

1) climate change
2) human rights
3) cost of living
...

I'm sure many more can be devised. Maybe Kerman himself can be
listed. And then after that, with this giant disclaimer officially
out of the way, maybe the Big8 checkgroups list can be maintained
for purposes of maintaining the Big8 checkgroups list, regardless
of how important the activity of maintaining it is or isn't.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

On 05.12.2025 21:09 Uhr Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> wrote:

On 05.12.2025 19:54 Uhr Adam H. Kerman wrote:

I don't care for your behavior, Marco.

Then feel free to ignore my posts. Certain readers have filter >functionality. Your freedom to use them.

You don't get this lack of power thing, do you Marco. I decide what to
read and what to comment on, not you. Welcome to inmoderated Usenet.

I never suggested to restrict you regarding this. Please re-read my
post.

I'm criticizing YOU because this is a configging discussion. Your >>behavior and your specious justicifactions are the topic of
discussion.

The initial topic was the RfC - some people do not want to talk about
the actual content, but heavily disagree with the hierarchy
administration. That's ok for me, but why is that a problem for you?

The RFC is a statement of what you already decided to do.

That is simply a plain stupid sentence. I proposed to do an action - at
the end 4 people vote on that. You know that 25% is not enough to do
anything?
We had multiple RfDs and sometimes we decided not to delete groups
because people were interested in using it.
In that RfD, we never got such a reply.
All the discussion in this thread was a meta-discussion about the power
of a hierarchy administration and server admins - entirely unrelated to
the proposal.

It's about your behavior.

You are against the proposal. You can't stand that it is being posted
anyway. You can't stand that the result might be a group deletion
control message - that everyone can ignore.

I've been around Usenet a lot longer than you, and I am uninterested
in your misrepresentations and your closed mind.

That's a lie. If you were uninterested, you wouldn't reply here.
That topic is really important for you, you complained many times, so
you are certainly not uninterested.

If you do not want to apply the control messages (that are only
suggestions on a technical viewpoint), why do you even care about
them?

Once again, your behavior is the issue in a configging discussion.

It is a problem existing in your head. I keep my statement. All those
people who disagree with the control messages should not apply them.
They do not need to care about my or other people's behavior.

The extent to which a News administrator acts on your control
messages is not at issue nor is it subject to criticism. His
server, his rules.

Fine, so they don't need to care about that messages at all if they
like.

I doubt very much that you accept this reality.

It is a technical situation. Why do you think I bother with that?

He presents Usenet to his users as he sees fit.

Fine, so why do those people even bother when a control message is
sent?

Because that is the topic of discussion.

Why should they care if they don't want to process the messages anyway?

You will continue to ignore me in future as you have in the past.

Is that a problem for you?

No. I have no problem making comments. You're the one objecting that I
might make comments.

Feel free to do so, but I can't follow your arguments. They don't make
sense at all and I do not want to waste more time with them.

A hierarchy administrator's role on Usenet is different than that
of a News administrator. It's far less important.

Fine, then feel free to ignore all hierarchy admins and their control >messages.

Telling me what to read and what to post again, are we?

I think you are still unwilling to understand my sentence.
I am definitely not telling you what to do, I told you that you can
decide yourself to ignore any control message or group list, not that
you have to.
Is that so hard to understand?
--
kind regards
Marco

Send spam to 1764965375muell@stinkedores.dorfdsl.de

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> wrote:

On 05.12.2025 21:09 Uhr Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> wrote:

On 05.12.2025 19:54 Uhr Adam H. Kerman wrote:

I don't care for your behavior, Marco.

Then feel free to ignore my posts. Certain readers have filter >>>functionality. Your freedom to use them.

You don't get this lack of power thing, do you Marco. I decide what to
read and what to comment on, not you. Welcome to inmoderated Usenet.

I never suggested to restrict you regarding this. Please re-read my
post.

Nice backpedal

I'm criticizing YOU because this is a configging discussion. Your >>>>behavior and your specious justicifactions are the topic of
discussion.

The initial topic was the RfC - some people do not want to talk about
the actual content, but heavily disagree with the hierarchy >>>administration. That's ok for me, but why is that a problem for you?

The RFC is a statement of what you already decided to do.

That is simply a plain stupid sentence.

In the current environment, RFDs are implemented.

The only way to prove me wrong is not to procead to rmgrouping.

It's bizarre that you deny this.

Your denials are beyond tiresome at this point. You get the last word on
the rest of it.

You outlasted me. You win; I lose.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

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

Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> wrote:

Fine, then feel free to ignore all hierarchy admins and their control >>messages.

Perhaps for the purposes of this discussion, it would be helpful
to enumerate the various concerns regarding which updating the Big8 >checkgroups list is irrelevant. I'll start with a few off the top
of my head:

1) climate change
2) human rights
3) cost of living
...

I'm sure many more can be devised. Maybe Kerman himself can be
listed. And then after that, with this giant disclaimer officially
out of the way, maybe the Big8 checkgroups list can be maintained
for purposes of maintaining the Big8 checkgroups list, regardless
of how important the activity of maintaining it is or isn't.

Absolutely list me. For the purpose of dissuading the current B8MB from
patting themselves on the back after having done the next useless thing
that will bring no new worthwhile discussion to Usenet, anything I might
say, repeating things I've said over many years of participating in
configging discussions, will be irrelevant.

I am under no delusion.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

Adam H. Kerman wrote:

You outlasted me. You win; I lose.

As usual, Adam, I disagree with you <grin>. I appreciate your providing
a bit of traffic in news.groups, but that's all it ever was. I hope
that you realized from the beginning that it was never a discussion or a debate. The fact that you've decided to quit is not a loss. The first
person to give up participating in a discussion that's not a discussion
is the winner, not the loser.

The Big-8 is well past the time where it needs hierarchy management.
Diddling with the list of newsgroups will accomplish nothing positive
and will have negative effects like newsgroups that appear on some
servers but not others, and making it more difficult to harvest any
useful information from previous Usenet posts.

The current Big-8 Board is like a bus driver who is working diligently
to steer the bus, when in fact the steering wheel is not connected to anything. I do not know if the group has actually deluded themselves
into believing that diddling with the newsgroup list will bring back
hoards of active users to populate newly-viable newsgroups. I think
it's more likely that they are using this as an opportunity to plump themselves up with power that does not exist. It doesn't matter. It
saddens me, personally, because it reminds me of the days when Big-8
hierarchy management meant something, but turning the disconnected
steering wheel won't affect the current course of Usenet.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

In article <10h6ojb$6rbo$1@dont-email.me>, Steve Bonine <spb@pobox.com> wrote: >The Big-8 is well past the time where it needs hierarchy management.

According to you. Meanwhile, new operators installing Usenet servers
ask for more accurate active files. I'm going to keep repeating
this fact, if you make me.

You (and Adam) don't care about current users of the active file
-- who are server operators -- because it's not of interest to you.
Then, instead of letting your disinterest rest, you make these
claims....

It saddens me, personally, because it reminds me of the days when
Big-8 hierarchy management meant something, but turning the
disconnected steering wheel won't affect the current course of
Usenet.

Exactly, it saddens you, it's about your personal emotions and
memories of the past, and your response has nothing to do with needs
today.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

Todd M. McComb wrote:

In article <10h6ojb$6rbo$1@dont-email.me>, Steve Bonine <spb@pobox.com> wrote:

The Big-8 is well past the time where it needs hierarchy management.

According to you. Meanwhile, new operators installing Usenet servers
ask for more accurate active files. I'm going to keep repeating
this fact, if you make me.

You can repeat it as much as you like, but that does not make it a fact.
We are in a time when people actually believe that if they say
something often enough, and forcefully enough, it becomes reality.

You (and Adam) don't care about current users of the active file
-- who are server operators -- because it's not of interest to you.
Then, instead of letting your disinterest rest, you make these
claims....

Please do not put words in my mouth. My "claims" are obvious to the
casual observer who recognizes reality. If you want to dispute what is obvious, please provide contrary evidence - number of new users, number
of new newsgroups that are viable six months down the road, anything
that might dispute what is obvious - Usenet is a mere shadow of its
former self, not attracting new users, and fading away.

I do not like this, but the fact that I do not like it does not give me
the ability to make it go away by simply stating that it is not happening.

It saddens me, personally, because it reminds me of the days when
Big-8 hierarchy management meant something, but turning the
disconnected steering wheel won't affect the current course of
Usenet.

Exactly, it saddens you, it's about your personal emotions and
memories of the past, and your response has nothing to do with needs
today.

You really believe you are making a difference. I'm sorry.


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

In article <10h7t0p$hda3$1@dont-email.me>, Steve Bonine <spb@pobox.com> wrote: >You can repeat it as much as you like, but that does not make it

a fact.

<plonk>

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

To finish, if these comments are being compiled for the RFD, I have
no actual opinion on the specific proposal(s).

I *do* have an opinion on the general "thou shalt never touch the
sacred group list" dictum put out here by a few people, dressed up
with a bunch of silly rhetoric, though. And I've mostly given it.
Whether some people here like it or not, new people do install
Usenet servers, and even write new Usenet software today. You can
feel free to say it's unimportant. Maybe it is. A lot of things
are unimportant, yet people do them.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2