Paul:

I call this, "Schleck "Schlocking" the idiots."

John

"Paul W. Schleck" wrote in message
...
In "John Smith"
writes:

Paul:

google groups are simply not acceptable, wikipedia is not acceptable...

You asked for links, I gave you links.

I realize that it is a common practice on Usenet to criticize the
source, and not the merits, of the ideas presented. That's why I
summarized the arguments and invited you to consider their validity
independent of sources and personalities. The invitation is still
open...

... the other two simply recommend using common sense ... DUH!!!

Sometimes it is necessary to repeat good common sense, even package it
in easily understood summaries, especially in a community where even
basic common sense is lost on some participants. Common sense can also
serve as a useful gateway to more subtle and complicated concepts. I
liked Professor Timo Salmi's concise article, especially the graphics in
front of the bullet points. I even think he would be flattered that you
find his words to be common sense. I only wish that his command of
idiomatic and colloquial English was sharper (he's Finnish), so that his
writing would be more approachable and familiar to the average
Usenetter.

Sometime around the mid-late 90's myths began to float about, we live in a
"echo chamber" and simply because these myths come echoing back in force is
only proof that some where successful in generating belief in the myths, are
in
a remarkable number of people...

Attempting to limit the internet is insane... this has been and will remain a
more powerful medium of exchange than many can accept, big deal...

Ah yes, Power To The People, and all that. Just don't forget that
without the cooperation of many large ISP's, communications backbone
providers, and hub server sites, what we recognize as Usenet would
quickly collapse. Such entities are already enforcing de-facto policies
by dropping binaries and cancelling SPAM. If the hub sites don't carry
it, that means that their downstream sites won't get it either. Posting
binaries in this newsgroup may subject it to powerful, and potentially
undesirable, forces beyond your (and my) control.

Some dreamed of passing binaries back and forth here, worked and developed
methods--for some strange reason--others came later attempting to halt it. I
admit this insanity is hard to understand--I simply note it exists... I don't
even care what the reason are, or the arguments of the "control freaks"
consist
of...

So you don't even want to listen to any arguments other than your own?
Well, that does explain your reaction.

Google groups? NO ONE SHOULD EVEN BE USING GOOGLE GROUPS!!!!

Why not? Oh, I realize that the current Beta is in many ways inferior
to the former Google Groups. I also dislike having to crunch on its
various bugs during the Beta rollout. But for many on the net,
precisely because of the 300+ GB of binaries per day that are being
thrown back and forth, their ISP's simply don't want to deal with
Usenet, and thus Google Groups is one of their only access points to it.
It's even free. My postgraduate alma mater, unomaha.edu, recommends
that its students who want to read Usenet go to Google Groups, as
news.unomaha.edu went away several years back. My employer also wasn't
interested in running the necessary multi-Terabyte disk farm and
dedicated T-1 or T-3 links either, and gave up newsgroups at about the
same time.

Also, where else are you going to find 23+ years of archived articles?
I still have Usenet news, and a good newsreader (nn), through my ISP
from home. Still, I often find myself going to Google Groups for
archival material, advice on specific questions (avoiding the flamage
that usually contains words other than the specific key words for which
I am searching), as well as a cross-check on the propagation of articles
I post locally. For this newsgroup, I find its long-term memory
invaluable to separate the wheat from the chaff, and the experts from
the kooks.

John

--
73, Paul W. Schleck, K3FU

http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/
Finger for PGP Public Key