clams_casino wrote:
I mainly use google groups to catch up on people who may have replied
to my posts in groups that I do not check that often.
It is also a source of amusement when someone makes a claim and
later denies making that claim. When the link to the original claim is
posted they tend to depart the thread.

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote ...
Sure it does. And Google's lack of attention is precisely what
is causing the problem under discussion right now.

Which in Google's case, appears to be nothing.
And by their own admission, so it isn't just anecdotal
or circumstantial evidence.

"those who wouldn't otherwise even be aware that usenet exists"
rarely post anything really useful. Not on the NGs that I read.
And I'm not even talking about the spam messages.

Sure it is. But it costs $$$$ to hire people to use their judgement
to decide who the abusers are and how to block them. Google
doesn't want to do that, so we all suffer from their neglect and/or
apathy. That is the problem in a nutshell.

Without an actual example, it is just a word.

I never claimed otherwise, but thanks for noticing. :-)

Then I KNOW you are talking about different newsgroups
than I am. I only read less than a dozen newsgroups and
frequently the daily volume is too great to read everything.

It is also springtime here in the northern hemisphere and
more people are doing things outdoors which contributes
to a slight seasonal drop in online traffic. But perhaps you
haven't been using Usenet long enough to notice that.

Now you're just repeating yourself.

You might have better credibility youself if you weren't claiming a
gmail return address. GoogleGroups and Gmail are the prime
sources of current Usenet spam. More people are blocking
anything from GoogleGroups and/or from people with gmail
addresses. FYI

"George Grapman" wrote ...
You appear to be refereing to the Archives functionality
which pre-dated Google's online web-based posting
mechanisms.

Richard Crowley <rcrowley@xp7rt.net> wrote
Nope.

Nothing like what you said previously.

Yes, but it isnt the only thing they could have done.

So your crap about big corporate players is just that, mindlessly silly crap.

Irrelevant to whether your crap about big corporate players is just that, mindlessly silly crap.

Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.

In spades with those who come across usenet because of
google and who then contribute to usenet just like the others
have done who have discovered usenet some other way.

Then you need to get out more.

Sure.

Nope, its perfectly feasible to automate the detection of the worst of it.

Because of the inevitable cost of that stupid approach.

But it doesnt have to always be a problem, in spite of your stupid claim.

Its also a fact.

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

Nope.

Only if your lips move when you read.

And irrelevant to your stupid claim about whats happened since its heyday anyway.

Been using it since LONG before you ever have thanks.

It sometimes helps with pig ignorant fools like you.

Nope. I use it here just because its spam filtering is much better than the
other free alternatives and I prefer not to fart around with munging the address.

Irrelevant to whether its useful in that particular situation.

Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.

And even someone as stupid as you should be able to see who does reply to my posts.

GTE

Richard Crowley wrote:
with your email address and then,like craigslist, they sent you a
confirmation before it was posted.

On May 13, 9:49 pm, George Grapman <sfgeo...@paccbell.net> wrote:
Interesting discussion. Since I am posting from Google Groups, I
guess some won't
see this reply. Nice to know that what I have to say is not important
because of the
technology I choose to use.

"EdwardATeller" <sorry_no_email@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f8d7950d-f5de-49b5-b6b0-1481a8d402d6@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
What you have to say may not be heard because you
chose to use the same means as so many of the more
noxious posters. People are avoiding the din of the
crazies and those hawking wares and self-aggrandizement.
If you choose to come to the NewsGroups through the
same means as the things that people are avoiding; you
should expect to be cut off when that means is cut off.

While I still keep track of all the postings, I find that
most of the GoogleGroups Spam is easy to spot and
my delete button works well. Also, it makes it easier
to notice and follow threads like this. I try to avoid
posting to these threads though, as it can be a way to
propagate them around the anti GoogleGroup filters.

There are a number of other ways to post to the
News Groups, you need not use Google's service
with its mass News Group posting features.

Luck;
Ken

Ken Maltby wrote:
news.aioe.org - no registration needed. Limited number of text posts per day.
news.motzarella.org - register to use. I used a gmail account for an
email address for registration. Account and password
authenticate the connection of the news reader software
to the site.

AIOE was inoperative for a few days, due to a DNS problem, but is now
up and running again. I use Thunderbird (mozilla.org) for posting to
these servers. For Motzarella, I have to tick the "authenticate" box
in the properties for the connection to the server.

HTH,
Paul

In article <f8d7950d-f5de-49b5-b6b0-1481a8d402d6@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
EdwardATeller <sorry_no_email@yahoo.com> writes:

It's a simple signal-to-noise problem.

The technology you chose is indistinguishable from that
which many spammers use.

Why are you surprised when people consider what you have to
say not important enough to dig out of the spammer infested trash?

--
These are my opinions, not necessarily my employer's. I hate spam.

EdwardATeller <sorry_no_email@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:f8d7950d-f5de-49b5-b6b0-1481a8d402d6@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:

It could be worse. You could be using AOL, in which case some people would
be paralyzed by shock and conniptions and would no doubt invoke the
Natiojnal Guard to restore order to usenet.

Me, I just think it's ironinc that people using Outlook Express for news
would try to pull any elitist routine, seeing how their choice of news
reader would put them slightly below AOl in the usenet food chain according
to the die-hard denizens.


jaybee

hal-usenet@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (Hal Murray) wrote in
news:3aKdnX3H0e4jNLLVnZ2dnUVZ_tDinZ2d@megapath.net :

But the headers are not.

I still don't understand why so many people seemingly find the task of
SKIPPING undesirable posts so damn challenging. Maybe they're chewing gum
at the same time and can't muster the concentration. Or maybe it's the
way some people have of making a big show of killfiling, as if to give
some meaning to their otherwise meaningless and inconsequential drop in
the ocean that is usenet.


jaybee

Hal Murray wrote:

Actually, it's what most all spammers use.

99.99978656% of all googlegroup newsgroup postings = spam. Filter those
& essentially all newsgroup spam disappears.

"Jacques E. Bouchard" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Simply a matter of volume: finding 10 meaningful and interesting posts
in 100 is much more cumbersome then finding 10 meaningful and
interesting posts in 20 after you filtered out the 80% of spam.

jue

Jacques E. Bouchard <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote
They dont, its more that they're too stupid to do the obvious.

Its more that they're too stupid to do the obvious.

Jürgen Exner <jurgenex@hotmail.com> wrote
Those numbers are completely bogus with most newsgroups.

Its closer to the reverse numbers with most newsgroups.

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:69ba0iF328scpU1@mid.individual.net...
This may indicate more about the newsgroups you frequent and
the type of post you consider "meaningful", than any reflection on
the state of the usenet. 80% seems low, if we are still talking about
GoogleGroups; from my experience. (Of course, I'm including the
nut cases as well as the spammers.)

Luck;
Ken

Ken Maltby <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> wrote
Nope, none have numbers anything like his numbers.

I wasnt commenting on that number, just the number of spam posts.

I could have said that more carefully.

I wouldnt even try to comment on the percentage of 'meaningful'
posts, because that varys so much with the reader and its interests.

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:69b9tdF3203t1U1@mid.individual.net...
Well it appears that the liberal efforts to boost the "self-esteem" of
the marginally functional have succeeded, all too well again. Everyone
else is "too stupid" or uncoordinated or in some other way, not up to
the exalted intellectual standing of you two. By the way you are both
able to just skip the "meaningless and inconsequential drop in the
ocean that is usenet", anytime now (I doubt you well be missed, and
you seem to believe that it is beneath you.)

Complaining about GoogleGroups facilitating spammers and noting
that they have become the home address of the most annoying kooks,
is an expression of the natural human effort to keep their environment
safe and clean. Complaining is a healthy social mechanism, in most
free societies. (House: "Is he Canadian?") You two seem to have no
problem complaining about our postings, why do you think we shouldn't
complain about GoogleGroups? Wait, don't answer that, I wouldn't
want anyone to think I would put any weight into one of your replies.

Luck;
Ken

"Ken Maltby" wrote ...
Ken, he's a troll (although with high self-esteem! :-) from one of
the cross-posted groups. Recommend: trim and/or plonk.
I've done both and it greatly enhances the SNR.

Ken Maltby <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> wrote
Nope, not very simple at all to deal with, essentially
because plenty of non spammers use groups.google.

We'll see...

Or they really are stupid if they cant manage to skip the obvious spam.

Its not as if the spam doesnt stand out like dogs balls.

Even you should be able to work out which is spam, if someone was
actually stupid enough to lend you a seeing eye dog and a white cane.

Yep. But presumably we dont believe that what
is currently being discussed falls into that category.

You in spades.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasys.

Nothing 'unsafe' about spam in usenet.

Rather pointless whining about what aint gunna change just because you whine about it.

Who cares ?

I havent complained about a damned thing.

No one said you couldnt. All anyone has ever done is rubbed your nose in the stupidity
of killfiling all posts from groups.google when its so trivial to skip the spam. Corse you
are always welcome to stop reading newsgroups too any time you like.

Take your demands and shove them where the sun dont shine.

You have always been and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.

What you might or might not claim to put any weight into in spades.

Dont need luck.