Problem with off topic postings in antenna newsgroup
I am sure you all have been experiencing the recent onslaught of off
topic postings in the antenna newsgroup. Subjects such as CB, code, etc. Character assinations, childish BS. What follows is an idea I have to combat this foolishness. I am dead serious about this. If you are interested in participating, read on. It happens when someone initiates a posting and "cross posts" it to multiple newsgroups including rec.radio.amateur.antenna. They do this because they think they reach a wider audience, instead of confining their subject to the appropriate newsgroup (such as, possibly, rec.radio.amateur.policy). They really aren't too smart and they don't have any manners or or appreciation of netiquette at all. Then what happens is someone sees their posting and decides to add their 2 cents worth, and they just use the default list of newsgroups which was included in the original posting, and voila! their reply also goes to 6 different newsgroups. I have an idea to rid us of this littering. Take an off topic posting, do a reply to it, be sure to edit your posting so that it DOES NOT appear in the antenna newsgroup. This is vital. In your reply posting just post a simple one line message, something like "I agree" or "yeah, right on Dude." Do it as many times as your energy lasts. (It would not hurt to edit your reply email to some bogus address so you do not get flames). Now, when someone in another newsgroup sees the offending thread, they will begin reading it, and see dozens of useless messages (all those "I agree, Dude" messages). Remember, these replies are not showing up in the antenna newsgroup. After someone has read 50 of them they will get the message. If they choose to do a reply, remember they are not smart enough to know better, their reply will only go to the newsgroups which you have left in place. Ok? Agree? Pick the next crap, off topic posting you see and fire away, along with me. Rick K2XT |
Problem with off topic postings in antenna newsgroup
Hi Rick, Sounds like an idea. The moronic trash is certainly irritating.
My answer is to add all such postings to my "Blocked senders" list, and I don't see it anymore. I just have to watch that I do not add Richard Clark, and others, who sometimes respond to the postings. Regards, Frank "Rick" wrote in message ... I am sure you all have been experiencing the recent onslaught of off topic postings in the antenna newsgroup. Subjects such as CB, code, etc. Character assinations, childish BS. What follows is an idea I have to combat this foolishness. I am dead serious about this. If you are interested in participating, read on. It happens when someone initiates a posting and "cross posts" it to multiple newsgroups including rec.radio.amateur.antenna. They do this because they think they reach a wider audience, instead of confining their subject to the appropriate newsgroup (such as, possibly, rec.radio.amateur.policy). They really aren't too smart and they don't have any manners or or appreciation of netiquette at all. Then what happens is someone sees their posting and decides to add their 2 cents worth, and they just use the default list of newsgroups which was included in the original posting, and voila! their reply also goes to 6 different newsgroups. I have an idea to rid us of this littering. Take an off topic posting, do a reply to it, be sure to edit your posting so that it DOES NOT appear in the antenna newsgroup. This is vital. In your reply posting just post a simple one line message, something like "I agree" or "yeah, right on Dude." Do it as many times as your energy lasts. (It would not hurt to edit your reply email to some bogus address so you do not get flames). Now, when someone in another newsgroup sees the offending thread, they will begin reading it, and see dozens of useless messages (all those "I agree, Dude" messages). Remember, these replies are not showing up in the antenna newsgroup. After someone has read 50 of them they will get the message. If they choose to do a reply, remember they are not smart enough to know better, their reply will only go to the newsgroups which you have left in place. Ok? Agree? Pick the next crap, off topic posting you see and fire away, along with me. Rick K2XT |
Problem with off topic postings in antenna newsgroup
Rick wrote:
Now, when someone in another newsgroup sees the offending thread, they will begin reading it, and see dozens of useless messages (all those "I agree, Dude" messages). Remember, these replies are not showing up in the antenna newsgroup. What's to keep the same low-lifes from replying, "I agree too, Dude", and re-directing it back to r.r.a.a? -- 73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Problem with off topic postings in antenna newsgroup
Rick wrote:
"Subjects such as CB, code, etc," Some insist CB is an "either-or" relationship with code. The FCC has assigned space for both. Amateur radio operators have imagined their own problems. The "Morse code forever" characters are nearly all retirees hanging on to an obsolete mode now replaced by other digital modes and analog communications. The U.S. military abandoned Morse long ago. It hangs on in the imagination of some unreconstructed "coots". I`d like my grandchildren to have fun with radio and not bother with Morse. "You don`t make people learn how to ride a horse before they drive a car". Barbarians are riffraff whether coded or not. They have no reason to leave the internet. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
Problem with off topic postings in antenna newsgroup
What's to keep the same low-lifes from replying, "I agree too, Dude", and re-directing it back to r.r.a.a? Because they are clueless to how Usenet works. The message they are replying to is NOT in r.r.a.a, it is now in some other newsgroup, and there are let's say, 50 of them, so many that it is an annoyance to even read through them. So when they finally have had enough after reading 10 of the 50, they decide to reply, their stupid reply will only go to the newsgroups that are in the message they are replying to (which does NOT contain r.r.a.a). Ok? Got it? Rick |
Problem with off topic postings in antenna newsgroup
|
Problem with off topic postings in antenna newsgroup
|
Problem with off topic postings in antenna newsgroup
Cecil Moore wrote:
Rick wrote: Now, when someone in another newsgroup sees the offending thread, they will begin reading it, and see dozens of useless messages (all those "I agree, Dude" messages). Remember, these replies are not showing up in the antenna newsgroup. What's to keep the same low-lifes from replying, "I agree too, Dude", and re-directing it back to r.r.a.a? I agree Dude! - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Problem with off topic postings in antenna newsgroup
Rick wrote:
What's to keep the same low-lifes from replying, "I agree too, Dude", and re-directing it back to r.r.a.a? Because they are clueless to how Usenet works. The message they are replying to is NOT in r.r.a.a, it is now in some other newsgroup, and there are let's say, 50 of them, so many that it is an annoyance to even read through them. So when they finally have had enough after reading 10 of the 50, they decide to reply, their stupid reply will only go to the newsgroups that are in the message they are replying to (which does NOT contain r.r.a.a). Ok? Got it? Indeed, the major offender - the one who has extreme spelling challenges, knows exactly what he is doing. He keeps multiple addresses to avoid posting limits, and if you reply to his messages in a manner in which he disagrees with, you'll get replies from all of 'em. The wonderful people involved in this are branching out from their usual newsgroups because they aren't getting the attention they crave there. Most of the old regulars are gone from rrap, and if there isn't anyone to fight with, it ain' no fun, man! If you do use your tactic, which does have some attraction to it, you might want an anonymizer. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Problem with off topic postings in antenna newsgroup
Bob Miller wrote:
Is the cluttering other newsgroup(s) with dozens of spurious replies a solution? Or just adding to the problem? What might be a solution? These folk know their way around filters. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Problem with off topic postings in antenna newsgroup
Michael Coslo wrote: Rick wrote: Indeed, the major offender - the one who has extreme spelling challenges, knows exactly what he is doing. He keeps multiple addresses to avoid posting limits, and if you reply to his messages in a manner in which he disagrees with, you'll get replies from all of 'em. not sure Mike if you are refering to me but thank you i do know what I am doing OTOH you do not tell me how did you moderated to death effort to rep[lace RRAP go did you learn when you surpess desent you kill discusioons of issues I never added radio NG to posting never I lleave as is since if I am libled in the post I want the response to go to all of them I was libeled in prehaps mike is you had foucsed your anager on theose using slibel and chrater assignation years ago instead of tolerating and rewarding it things would not be so bad but of course NOTHING is your responsiblity even in part |
Problem with off topic postings in antenna newsgroup
In addition to the problems others have pointed out, following this
advice would result in our spamming other newsgroups. The folks at most of the other newsgroups are just as annoyed and not to blame as we are, yet we'd be adding to their QRN. How would you like it if the folks on one of those newsgroups were to do the same thing you propose? I'll add that the mental- and maturity-challenged people making these postings thrive on attention of any kind, and even meaningless responses confirm that their postings are attracting the attention they crave. I don't have a solution for it, any more than I have a solution for spam. I've developed ways to deal with over 200 spams a day, and if this gets too much out of hand, I'll find some way to deal with it too. A Thunderbird add-in allowing plonking all cross-posted messages or ones cross-posted to certain other groups probably wouldn't be too difficult, and would provide relief for Thunderbird users at least. In the meantime, it comes with the territory, like mosquitoes in the woods and roaches in cheap hotels. It's sad that people can reach physical adulthood without advancing beyond that level of maturity, but it's a fact of life. And we've got to keep working around it and not let their inanity push out the people wanting to talk about antennas. But I don't agree with this suggestion as a way to fight it. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Rick wrote: I am sure you all have been experiencing the recent onslaught of off topic postings in the antenna newsgroup. Subjects such as CB, code, etc. Character assinations, childish BS. What follows is an idea I have to combat this foolishness. I am dead serious about this. If you are interested in participating, read on. . . . |
Problem with off topic postings in antenna newsgroup
|
Problem with off topic postings in antenna newsgroup
Michael Coslo wrote: wrote: Michael Coslo wrote: not sure Mike if you are refering to me but thank you i do know what I am doing OTOH you do not tell me how did you moderated to death effort to rep[lace RRAP go did you learn when you surpess desent you kill discusioons of issues I never added radio NG to posting never I lleave as is since if I am libled in the post I want the response to go to all of them I was libeled in prehaps mike is you had foucsed your anager on theose using slibel and chrater assignation years ago instead of tolerating and rewarding it things would not be so bad but of course NOTHING is your responsiblity even in part And there you have it! Thanks for proving my point Mr. Morgan. what point? |
Problem with off topic postings in antenna newsgroup
|
Problem with off topic postings in antenna newsgroup
Rick wrote:
What's to keep the same low-lifes from replying, "I agree too, Dude", and re-directing it back to r.r.a.a? Because they are clueless to how Usenet works. The message they are replying to is NOT in r.r.a.a, it is now in some other newsgroup, and there are let's say, 50 of them, so many that it is an annoyance to even read through them. So when they finally have had enough after reading 10 of the 50, they decide to reply, their stupid reply will only go to the newsgroups that are in the message they are replying to (which does NOT contain r.r.a.a). Ok? Got it? Rick Rick Unfortunately, they are NOT cluless as to how it works. They play this game most of their waking hours. They know more about it than you, me and any 10 people you can name combined. And I work in the ISP biz. tom K0TAR |
Problem with off topic postings in antenna newsgroup
Slow Code wrote: (Richard Harrison) wrote in : Do you have a spare tire in your car in case you get a flat tire? no but.. Ham radio without a CW requirement is like driving your car around without a spare tire. in that case why do insist you only drive on the spare with most spare tires that is dangerous Why do you people want to dumb everything down all the time. Eliminating CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicate. who was eleimating CW use just testing SC |
Problem with off topic postings in antenna newsgroup
" wrote in
oups.com: Slow Code wrote: (Richard Harrison) wrote in : Do you have a spare tire in your car in case you get a flat tire? no but.. Ham radio without a CW requirement is like driving your car around without a spare tire. in that case why do insist you only drive on the spare with most spare tires that is dangerous Why do you people want to dumb everything down all the time. Eliminating CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicate. who was eleimating CW use just testing SC Mark, You don't know what ham radio is about. I think if you just sit back and read the threads, instead of screwing them up with your insane babble, you might learn something. Of course, that depends on whether or not you really want to learn something. SC |
Problem with off topic postings in antenna newsgroup
Cecil Moore wrote in
m: Slow Code wrote: Do you have a spare tire in your car in case you get a flat tire? Ham radio without a CW requirement is like driving your car around without a spare tire. I drive my Harley around all the time without a spare tire. I don't wear a seat belt either. What's wrong with that? Cecil, you've been like that since day one. I knew years ago arguing with you that you'd never change, I don't know why I still argue. You like CW, but when anyone has ever made an arguement for keeping the code requirement you tease them. SC |
Problem with off topic postings in antenna newsgroup
Slow Code wrote: Cecil Moore wrote in m: Slow Code wrote: Do you have a spare tire in your car in case you get a flat tire? Ham radio without a CW requirement is like driving your car around without a spare tire. I drive my Harley around all the time without a spare tire. I don't wear a seat belt either. What's wrong with that? Cecil, you've been like that since day one. I knew years ago arguing with you that you'd never change, I don't know why I still argue. I don't know why you bother. You like CW, but when anyone has ever made an arguement for keeping the code requirement you tease them. The Code TEST requirement.... SC Slow, you're not only slow in code... |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:43 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com