| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
BIG Brothers' attack on USENET--i.e. our forum here ...
It is my belief VERY few would ever oppose an attack on child porn and
the perverts it serves; however, that is not what this is about. I believe this is an attack on free speech and the peoples' right to engage in the free exchange of ideas--a CREATOR given right ... http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9964895-38.html "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. ..." Deny perverts access and exercise of their perversions. Don't deny citizens their rights which are beyond any governments authority. Regards, JS |
BIG Brothers' attack on USENET--i.e. our forum here ...
OK - SO WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH ANTENNAS - OR ARE YOU JUST TROLLING
ALONG?? "John Smith" wrote in message ... It is my belief VERY few would ever oppose an attack on child porn and the perverts it serves; however, that is not what this is about. I believe this is an attack on free speech and the peoples' right to engage in the free exchange of ideas--a CREATOR given right ... http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9964895-38.html "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. ..." Deny perverts access and exercise of their perversions. Don't deny citizens their rights which are beyond any governments authority. Regards, JS |
BIG Brothers' attack on USENET--i.e. our forum here ...
W3CQH wrote:
OK - SO WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH ANTENNAS - OR ARE YOU JUST TROLLING ALONG?? ... U R kidding, right? Or, are you just attempting to play the part of a LARGE idiot? If USENET is dropped by major ISP's, as already has began (actually forced the the Attorney General), there will be no antenna newsgroup left. I don't know how that could be more fitting to be discussed here! Please tell me you were just blind, and not that big an idiot--from past discussions here I am beginning to believe this NG is full of such ... it causes one to doubt the sanity of many here. Regards, JS |
BIG Brothers' attack on USENET--i.e. our forum here ...
To the best of my knowledge the Attorney General hasn't taken a
stand about/against the average newsgroup, only those such as the child porn groups. If that isn't so, please enlighten me. Adult porn groups, dealing with those above the age of consent, haven't been banned as yet, probably won't be. I can see a difference there, can you? I can't see that your 'free speach' has much to do with antennas either... - 'Doc (large idiot) |
BIG Brothers' attack on USENET--i.e. our forum here ...
....Oops! Sorry, make that LARGE idiot.
- 'Doc |
BIG Brothers' attack on USENET--i.e. our forum here ...
|
BIG Brothers' attack on USENET--i.e. our forum here ...
Res wrote:
... make the poster responsible for their actions, not protect them. Actually, I am for less govt. involvement, NOT more. However, child porn perverts and their groups is/are one large exception and the govt. banning them would be greatly appreciated by the vast majority. I think it is obvious some people do not read the material before they begin to enter into the discussion (such as the URL of the article I gave when this thread began.) And, actually, this is good. It gives us warning that we need not be bothered giving them and they their text any consideration(s) at all, i.e. those arguing solely for the purpose of argument--and then only responding with arguments contrary to "common logic." (akin to common sense) Perhaps they want USENET and r.r.a.a. gone! Who knows what logic drives them--indeed, one can easily draw the conclusion that no logic whatsoever is involved in their text. The rest of us should write our public servants and demand they take action against this rogue Attorney General, his actions are truly un-American. The ISP's should also be written and/or any subscriptions to their services be dropped. However, with the number of politicians caught engaging in perversions and/or inappropriate sexual behavior, perhaps only the child porn groups will be left on USENET--and those only populated by our public servants--on their private ISP supported by public monies! Ya never know, ya just never know ... :-( Regards, JS |
BIG Brothers' attack on USENET--i.e. our forum here ...
Hmm. I have several 'odd' ideas. One of them is that if I want to
talk politics, civil rights, etc, I do so on/in a user group that deals with that sort of thing. I don't do so on/in user groups that don't generally deal with those topic, such as this one. Why? Cuz 'off topic' stuff generally is only irritating, has nothing to do with the topics generally found here, and only show the poster's general disregard for that/this group and the people on/in it. It's generally called SPAM. But then what do I know? I'm just a LARGE idiot... right? - 'Doc |
BIG Brothers' attack on USENET--i.e. our forum here ...
|
BIG Brothers' attack on USENET--i.e. our forum here ...
|
BIG Brothers' attack on USENET--i.e. our forum here ...
John Smith wrote:
wrote: ... rec.radio.amateur.equipment rec.radio.amateur.moderated rec.radio.amateur.homebrew sci.physics.electromag Though the point is moot since your original premise that USENET is being in any way shut down is utter nonsense. 1) Those are not antenna groups. Antennas are not electromagnetic devices? Antennas are not amateur radio equipment? Antennas are not homebrewed by hams? Antennas are not a suitable subject for discussion among hams? 2) If USENET is made inaccessible, those groups will be gone also. All American ISP's could drop their USENET feeds and it would not make USNET inaccessible. A bunch of clueless dillhole web users would lose access, but that would be for the better of all. You obviously haven't a clue what USENET is or how it works. 3) You did NOT read that article, else you are unable or unwilling to realize USENET is very much in danger. There is/was no reason to force those ISP's into dropping USENET support, dropping the perv groups would be enough. Once USENET is gone it will be too late to become aware of what is happening ... now this has been explained enough, if you can't get it by now--you won't ever ... I did read the article. You did not read the last three paragraphs. The ISP's involved were not forced into anything. They agreed to it voluntarily. Trust me, if you don't have the resources to realize the importance of the actions being discussed (and, you can read the comments on the URL I originally gave to see others concerns) just relax, others can move to protect your rights for you ... Yeah, right. I've been on USENET since it was distributed by 1200 baud modems over UUCP and back in the day I was a UUCP leaf node. Tell me all about it. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
BIG Brothers' attack on USENET--i.e. our forum here ...
wrote:
John Smith wrote: wrote: ... rec.radio.amateur.equipment rec.radio.amateur.moderated rec.radio.amateur.homebrew sci.physics.electromag Though the point is moot since your original premise that USENET is being in any way shut down is utter nonsense. 1) Those are not antenna groups. Antennas are not electromagnetic devices? Antennas are not amateur radio equipment? Antennas are not homebrewed by hams? Antennas are not a suitable subject for discussion among hams? 2) If USENET is made inaccessible, those groups will be gone also. All American ISP's could drop their USENET feeds and it would not make USNET inaccessible. A bunch of clueless dillhole web users would lose access, but that would be for the better of all. You obviously haven't a clue what USENET is or how it works. 3) You did NOT read that article, else you are unable or unwilling to realize USENET is very much in danger. There is/was no reason to force those ISP's into dropping USENET support, dropping the perv groups would be enough. Once USENET is gone it will be too late to become aware of what is happening ... now this has been explained enough, if you can't get it by now--you won't ever ... I did read the article. You did not read the last three paragraphs. The ISP's involved were not forced into anything. They agreed to it voluntarily. Trust me, if you don't have the resources to realize the importance of the actions being discussed (and, you can read the comments on the URL I originally gave to see others concerns) just relax, others can move to protect your rights for you ... Yeah, right. I've been on USENET since it was distributed by 1200 baud modems over UUCP and back in the day I was a UUCP leaf node. Tell me all about it. I cite your reply as a sufficient argument to convince me you are a hopeless idiot and a complete waste of a persons time--if I ever had a doubt. Good job fool ... :-( plonk ... JS |
BIG Brothers' attack on USENET--i.e. our forum here ...
John Smith wrote:
I cite your reply as a sufficient argument to convince me you are a hopeless idiot and a complete waste of a persons time--if I ever had a doubt. Good job fool ... :-( plonk ... You've already "plonked" me several times genius. Obviously you are one of the clueless dillweeds without a clue what USENET is or how it works. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
BIG Brothers' attack on USENET--i.e. our forum here ...
() wrote in
: To the best of my knowledge the Attorney General hasn't taken a stand about/against the average newsgroup, only those such as the child porn groups. But several national ISPs (cable-based privders, generally) are taking the easy way out by dropping their internal USENET service entirely. The independent commercial and free servers will still be around (for a while, anyway). -- Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | |
BIG Brothers' attack on USENET--i.e. our forum here ...
On Jun 10, 5:27*pm, John Smith wrote:
W3CQH wrote: OK - SO WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH ANTENNAS - OR ARE YOU JUST TROLLING ALONG?? ... U R kidding, right? *Or, are you just attempting to play the part of a LARGE idiot? If USENET is dropped by major ISP's, as already has began (actually forced the the Attorney General), there will be no antenna newsgroup left. *I don't know how that could be more fitting to be discussed here! Please tell me you were just blind, and not that big an idiot--from past discussions here I am beginning to believe this NG is full of such ... it causes one to doubt the sanity of many here. Regards, JS |
BIG Brothers' attack on USENET--i.e. our forum here ...
On Jun 10, 5:07*pm, "W3CQH" wrote:
OK - SO WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH ANTENNAS - OR ARE YOU JUST TROLLING ALONG?? "John Smith" wrote in message ... It is my belief VERY few would ever oppose an attack on child porn and the perverts it serves; *however, that is not what this is about. *I believe this is an attack on free speech and the peoples' right to engage in the free exchange of ideas--a CREATOR given right ... http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9964895-38.html "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. ..." Deny perverts access and exercise of their perversions. *Don't deny citizens their rights which are beyond any governments authority. Regards, JS- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I think this entire group should be shut down. It serves no useful purpose . The showing of the crap above only show the truthfullness of what I say. SHUT USENET DOWN |
BIG Brothers' attack on USENET--i.e. our forum here ...
|
BIG Brothers' attack on USENET--i.e. our forum here ...
Bert Hyman wrote:
(commander john) wrote in : SHUT USENET DOWN If you simply stop reading googlegroups, that personal problem will be solved. Then you can get to work on the rest of your problems. Something tells me there is a common thread which runs though most of his problems--a solution to that thread will end most of of the problems he complains of with a single action. The one you suggest could just be just such a solution. :-) Regards, JS |
BIG Brothers' attack on USENET--i.e. our forum here ...
|
BIG Brothers' attack on USENET--i.e. our forum here ...
Roy Lewallen wrote:
wrote: Hmm. I have several 'odd' ideas. One of them is that if I want to talk politics, civil rights, etc, I do so on/in a user group that deals with that sort of thing. I don't do so on/in user groups that don't generally deal with those topic, such as this one. Why? Cuz 'off topic' stuff generally is only irritating, has nothing to do with the topics generally found here, and only show the poster's general disregard for that/this group and the people on/in it. It's generally called SPAM. But then what do I know? I'm just a LARGE idiot... right? - 'Doc What's more irritating is that people respond to it. I plonked "John Smith" quite some time ago, so I'm not bothered at all by his rantings, since I don't even see them. But I do see the responses from the folks who respond to them. The best way to deal with this kind of posting is to ignore them. Ignored OT posters go elsewhere, where they can get the attention they're after, before very long. But they don't if they get a constant supply of it. Roy Lewallen, W7EL I guess that all implies that if ISPs drop USENET it just doesn't matter, this will not set a trend, the attorney general will just stop with the few he has already manipulated, this will not set the stage encourage frivolous lawsuits--I can't help but differ with that ... Perhaps they wish to imply that only dimwits use the ISPs in question (the ones which have discontinued USENET)... I simply have no way to prove/disprove that ... however, I suspect NOT! Perhaps it implies government manipulation of the channels of citizens communications is a good thing ... I think not. Perhaps it implies that ISPs dropping USENET (and this NG) is a good thing which just falsely appears to be an evil ... again, I differ ... Perhaps the people who use the pervert NGs are the ones screaming not to worry? They might fear this will focus attention on their perversions? Hmmm ... I wonder, however, sometimes I am given to bouts of paranoia. Perhaps I am the problem; just plonk me and ISPs dropping USENET are seen for what they really are--only a figment of my imagination. Plonk me and you will immediately realize it is all just a phony bad dream ... well maybe, who knows. But, I think it all points to the logic of a few which attempts to drive the direction of this newsgroup. A few remain blind to the insanity they drown in ... :-( I leave this to others to sort out. However, if the small group of illogical amateurs which have manipulated amateur radio are able to influence the course of the internet, why would we think they would do any different than they have done with the amateur bands? i.e. stagnation, decay, good-ole-boys-club mentality, loss of importance, ancient equipment designs, resistance to progress, etc. Regards, JS |
BIG Brothers' attack on USENET--i.e. our forum here ...
That has got to be the best example of misdirection, false
humility, and pseudo-apologizing this stagnant, decaying, unimportant, 'GOB' user of ancient equipment who is resistant to progress, has seen in a long time! Are you by chance a politician? OH! And us 'GOB's who disagree with you are the reason the amateur bands are in the state they are in now! "Dang me, dang me! Ought'a take a rope and hang me!"... that's how it goes, ain't it? What the hell, might as well admit to being one of them 'pervs' who live on the child porn sites. Stands to reason, don't it? - 'Doc (I'm 'PC', by the way. ~IF~ that 'PC' stands for Patsy Cline.) |
BIG Brothers' attack on USENET--i.e. our forum here ...
Roy,
Yeah, but there are times when you just can't help it. Sorry 'bout that. - 'Doc |
BIG Brothers' attack on USENET--i.e. our forum here ...
|
BIG Brothers' attack on USENET--i.e. our forum here ...
|
BIG Brothers' attack on USENET--i.e. our forum here ...
I'd hate to see Usenet go because it has been around a long time.
However there are a multitude of Ham orientated and Amateur Radio antenna groups within Yahoo Groups. Most of them are also moderated, which means flame wars like this usually get extinguished pretty quickly. 73 de David, VK2DMH. |
BIG Brothers' attack on USENET--i.e. our forum here ...
|
BIG Brothers' attack on USENET--i.e. our forum here ...
|
BIG Brothers' attack on USENET--i.e. our forum here ...
Robert Smits wrote:
No, thanks. Yahoo groups are NOT the same as Usenet or a reasonable substitute for international newsgroups with nntp feeds. A better alternative at the moment are alternate newsfeeds like giganews. -- Bob Smits, Ladysmith, BC "What a wonder is USENET; such wholesale production of conjecture from such a trifling investment in fact." -- Carl S. Gutekunst Well said. However the low bandwidth requirements of newsgroups should be included in any decent ISPs' services, IMHO. Regards, JS |
BIG Brothers' attack on USENET--i.e. our forum here ...
John Smith wrote:
Robert Smits wrote: No, thanks. Yahoo groups are NOT the same as Usenet or a reasonable substitute for international newsgroups with nntp feeds. A better alternative at the moment are alternate newsfeeds like giganews. -- Bob Smits, Ladysmith, BC "What a wonder is USENET; such wholesale production of conjecture from such a trifling investment in fact." -- Carl S. Gutekunst Well said. However the low bandwidth requirements of newsgroups should be included in any decent ISPs' services, IMHO. Low bandwidth my ass, a full USENET feed is gigabytes per day. Know nothing fool. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
BIG Brothers' attack on USENET--i.e. our forum here ...
Res wrote:
... 90% of internet users dont know what usenet is let alone use it :) MENSA is even worse, only 2% of the population are allowed membership ... Gigs? Huh, you find that scary? A simple download of one CD is generally around ~713 megabytes--on a decent feed this only takes a matter of minutes ... That is one problem which has plagued 99% of amateurs--small thinking. Regards, JS |
BIG Brothers' attack on USENET--i.e. our forum here ...
|
BIG Brothers' attack on USENET--i.e. our forum here ...
Res wrote:
and what do you propose we STORE it on? or do you rather ISP's only keep a couple weeks news? We have news going back 5 years in most groups. you do the maths since your huge brain is apparently better than us amateurs. The 750 gig hd in my laptop was unimaginable but a few short years ago (not to mention, unfordable if possible--NOT today)... pause before making rash statements--you can answer your own questions. As I have mentioned, that way of thinking place you in "dinosaur danger!" Regards, JS |
BIG Brothers' attack on USENET--i.e. our forum here ...
Res wrote:
... you do the maths since your huge brain is apparently better than us amateurs. BTW ... I AM an amateur, IDIOT! But, you allude to the correct assumption, an amateur with a LARGE brain is much preferred to the example you demonstrate. Regards, JS |
BIG Brothers' attack on USENET--i.e. our forum here ...
John Smith wrote:
wrote: ... Low bandwidth my ass, a full USENET feed is gigabytes per day. Know nothing fool. Perhaps a valid argument for those on dialup or with inadequate access to the net. Gigs ain't nothin', we move towards terabytes ... those thinking in gigs are destined to the path of the dinosaur ... A full T1 line is 1.5 megabits/sec. The theoretical maximum bandwidth of DSL is 8 megabits/sec and you will be lucky to get 6 megabits/sec. A full USENET feed, one way, is about 130 GB day. 130 Gbytes X 8 bits = 1 X 10^12 bits. 1 X 10^12 bits / 6 X 10^6 bit/sec = 1.6 X 10^5 seconds = 46 hours. So since there are only 24 hours in a day, you need the equivelant of 2 full, good DSL connections just to handle the incoming feed. Add to the connections necessary for the outgoing feed. And to store 30 days worth is 4 terabytes of storage. As I said, know nothing fool. BTW, how you can read my post when you've plonked me so many times? -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
BIG Brothers' attack on USENET--i.e. our forum here ...
John Smith wrote:
BTW ... I AM an amateur ... But are you a rank amateur? :-) -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
BIG Brothers' attack on USENET--i.e. our forum here ...
John Smith wrote:
BTW ... I AM an amateur, IDIOT! But, you allude to the correct assumption, an amateur with a LARGE brain is much preferred to the example you demonstrate. ========================================== IF you are a licensed radio amateur , show us the courtesy to include your callsign ,like all others contributing to this NG. I have not come across a single licensed radio amateur , calling another radio amateur an i***t ! What about 'trying' to show good manners. Frank GM0CSZ / KN6WH |
BIG Brothers' attack on USENET--i.e. our forum here ...
"Highland Ham" wrote in message ... John Smith wrote: BTW ... I AM an amateur, IDIOT! But, you allude to the correct assumption, an amateur with a LARGE brain is much preferred to the example you demonstrate. ========================================== IF you are a licensed radio amateur , show us the courtesy to include your callsign ,like all others contributing to this NG. I have not come across a single licensed radio amateur , calling another radio amateur an i***t ! What about 'trying' to show good manners. Frank GM0CSZ / KN6WH then you haven't been reading this group for long! |
BIG Brothers' attack on USENET--i.e. our forum here ...
wrote:
John Smith wrote: wrote: ... Low bandwidth my ass, a full USENET feed is gigabytes per day. Know nothing fool. Perhaps a valid argument for those on dialup or with inadequate access to the net. Gigs ain't nothin', we move towards terabytes ... those thinking in gigs are destined to the path of the dinosaur ... A full T1 line is 1.5 megabits/sec. The theoretical maximum bandwidth of DSL is 8 megabits/sec and you will be lucky to get 6 megabits/sec. A full USENET feed, one way, is about 130 GB day. 130 Gbytes X 8 bits = 1 X 10^12 bits. 1 X 10^12 bits / 6 X 10^6 bit/sec = 1.6 X 10^5 seconds = 46 hours. So since there are only 24 hours in a day, you need the equivelant of 2 full, good DSL connections just to handle the incoming feed. Add to the connections necessary for the outgoing feed. And to store 30 days worth is 4 terabytes of storage. As I said, know nothing fool. BTW, how you can read my post when you've plonked me so many times? Wow!!! If everyone was as you, you would be correct! Unfortunately you either offer substandard ISP bandwidth, or you are an idiot--now let me guess???? :-) But hey, you add bytes of usage--maybe you will even find someone who cares or believes you!! Good going man! BTW--are you from a 3rd world country? Regards, JS |
BIG Brothers' attack on USENET--i.e. our forum here ...
Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith wrote: BTW ... I AM an amateur ... But are you a rank amateur? :-) LOL ... gawd man, you just don't know how "rank" I am! I guess I need pay attention to personal hygiene more, ya' think? :-) grin Regards, JS |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:04 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com