Yes, well, we are not asking that you give us a set of rules to live under
either...

John

"an_old_friend" wrote in message
oups.com...


Cmdr Buzz Corey wrote:
John Smith wrote:
Lloyd:

What are you claiming as evidence for this claim, in your own words, "you
are
not supposed to be posting binary files in regular news groups..." ????

John


It is against Usenet convention to post binary files to non-binary

convention not some sort of rule if there is a reason I see no reason
not to post a binary here on occasion just not a whole seris of them
after all it can hardly be more wasted bandwidth than we see here daily


groups. That is why binary groups were invented. Binary files are
usually very large should not be posted to regular news groups as these
groups are archived forever. The binary groups are purged ever so often,
so it isn't prudent to archive large binary files in regular newsgroups.

Funny thing:

Amateur "control freaks" damn near reduced radio to where no one is left on the
HF bands though there imposing ridiculous tests and rules... now they are right
there at the door of the internet attempting to reproduce this miracle of
destruction...

.... get a clue, we were fine here before cheap computers, the un-washed-masses
and amateurs!

John

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
Yes, well, we are not asking that you give us a set of rules to live under
either...

John

"an_old_friend" wrote in message
oups.com...


Cmdr Buzz Corey wrote:
John Smith wrote:
Lloyd:

What are you claiming as evidence for this claim, in your own words, "you
are
not supposed to be posting binary files in regular news groups..." ????

John


It is against Usenet convention to post binary files to non-binary

convention not some sort of rule if there is a reason I see no reason
not to post a binary here on occasion just not a whole seris of them
after all it can hardly be more wasted bandwidth than we see here daily


groups. That is why binary groups were invented. Binary files are
usually very large should not be posted to regular news groups as these
groups are archived forever. The binary groups are purged ever so often,
so it isn't prudent to archive large binary files in regular newsgroups.

.... through their...

even, damn my typos!

John

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
Funny thing:

Amateur "control freaks" damn near reduced radio to where no one is left on
the HF bands though there imposing ridiculous tests and rules... now they are
right there at the door of the internet attempting to reproduce this miracle
of destruction...

... get a clue, we were fine here before cheap computers, the
un-washed-masses and amateurs!

John

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
Yes, well, we are not asking that you give us a set of rules to live under
either...

John

"an_old_friend" wrote in message
oups.com...


Cmdr Buzz Corey wrote:
John Smith wrote:
Lloyd:

What are you claiming as evidence for this claim, in your own words,
"you are
not supposed to be posting binary files in regular news groups..." ????

John


It is against Usenet convention to post binary files to non-binary

convention not some sort of rule if there is a reason I see no reason
not to post a binary here on occasion just not a whole seris of them
after all it can hardly be more wasted bandwidth than we see here daily


groups. That is why binary groups were invented. Binary files are
usually very large should not be posted to regular news groups as these
groups are archived forever. The binary groups are purged ever so often,
so it isn't prudent to archive large binary files in regular newsgroups.

John Smith wrote:
Funny thing:

Amateur "control freaks" damn near reduced radio to where no one is left on the
HF bands though there imposing ridiculous tests and rules... now they are right
there at the door of the internet attempting to reproduce this miracle of
destruction...

... get a clue, we were fine here before cheap computers, the un-washed-masses
and amateurs!

John

shudder the though John you and I are in complete and total agreement

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
Yes, well, we are not asking that you give us a set of rules to live under
either...

John

"an_old_friend" wrote in message
oups.com...


Cmdr Buzz Corey wrote:
John Smith wrote:
Lloyd:

What are you claiming as evidence for this claim, in your own words, "you
are
not supposed to be posting binary files in regular news groups..." ????

John


It is against Usenet convention to post binary files to non-binary

convention not some sort of rule if there is a reason I see no reason
not to post a binary here on occasion just not a whole seris of them
after all it can hardly be more wasted bandwidth than we see here daily


groups. That is why binary groups were invented. Binary files are
usually very large should not be posted to regular news groups as these
groups are archived forever. The binary groups are purged ever so often,
so it isn't prudent to archive large binary files in regular newsgroups.

John Smith wrote:
Funny thing:

Amateur "control freaks" damn near reduced radio to where no one is left on the
HF bands though there imposing ridiculous tests and rules... now they are right
there at the door of the internet attempting to reproduce this miracle of
destruction...

You obviously don't ever listen to HF.

John Smith wrote:
Yes, well, we are not asking that you give us a set of rules to live under
either...

It isn't my rules, it is Usenet convention.

commander:

Furnish me with a URL to a document by usenet on the false specs you are
attempting to pass off on the un-witting hams, and others, here. Where is a
usenet "Official Faq" stating what you are claiming?

No, it is you "control freaking" and thinking someone will pay attention...
now you will probably wonder why people will ignore your other "facts."
Perhaps you are confused?

Like I say, if I even posted a uuencoded binary here, how many could even deal
with it and end up with an app they could use or a pic they could view, most
likely NONE!

John


"Cmdr Buzz Corey" wrote in message
...
John Smith wrote:
Yes, well, we are not asking that you give us a set of rules to live under
either...

It isn't my rules, it is Usenet convention.

In "John Smith" writes:

commander:

Furnish me with a URL to a document by usenet on the false specs you are
attempting to pass off on the un-witting hams, and others, here. Where is a
usenet "Official Faq" stating what you are claiming?


Try any of the following:


http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...1d33dcfe1ff321

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/finding-groups/general/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsgroups

http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/nobin.html


Even if you don't want to accept any of these articles as authoritative,
consider the validity of their basic arguments, which I've summarized
below:


- Many sites choose to carry only the discussion newsgroups, as the
binary newsgroups represent the overwhelming majority of Usenet
traffic volume (by an astonishing ratio of 300:1 as of 2002, according
to the first article referenced above).

- Sites can easily limit their news traffic to the much smaller
discussion newsgroups volume if binaries are restricted by convention
to newsgroups that have "binaries" in their names.

- Even if one poster posts "just one little binary" in a discussion
newsgroup, it can add up if others join in, especially multiplied over
many newsgroups (see "Tragedy of the Commons" at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons ).

- If this results in very little meaningful distinction in traffic
volume between discussion and binary newsgroups, such that sites that
carry news can no longer easily filter out the binary material, and
keep their bandwidth and storage requirements to a manageable amount,
many sites may choose to drop many discussion newsgroups, or even drop
news altogether. The latter has already happened at many sites,
including AOL, MSN, and Comcast.

- Sites with more sophisticated filtering than that provided by standard
news server software may choose to filter out all posts that have
binary content, anyway. Already, Google Groups strips out any binary
contents from their newsgroups archive, mostly to avoid becoming a
de-facto free porno/pirated-warez server. Even a site like Google,
with nearly unlimited communications bandwidth and storage space, is
concerned about becoming a transmission vector for copyright
violations, viruses, and obscene material.

- It may even be a violation of your ISP's Terms of Service (TOS) or
Acceptable Usage Policy (AUP) to post binaries to a discussion
newsgroup.

--
73, Paul W. Schleck, K3FU

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

Paul:

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

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

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...

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...

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

John

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

commander:

Furnish me with a URL to a document by usenet on the false specs you are
attempting to pass off on the un-witting hams, and others, here. Where is a
usenet "Official Faq" stating what you are claiming?


Try any of the following:


http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...1d33dcfe1ff321

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/finding-groups/general/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsgroups

http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/nobin.html


Even if you don't want to accept any of these articles as authoritative,
consider the validity of their basic arguments, which I've summarized
below:


- Many sites choose to carry only the discussion newsgroups, as the
binary newsgroups represent the overwhelming majority of Usenet
traffic volume (by an astonishing ratio of 300:1 as of 2002, according
to the first article referenced above).

- Sites can easily limit their news traffic to the much smaller
discussion newsgroups volume if binaries are restricted by convention
to newsgroups that have "binaries" in their names.

- Even if one poster posts "just one little binary" in a discussion
newsgroup, it can add up if others join in, especially multiplied over
many newsgroups (see "Tragedy of the Commons" at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons ).

- If this results in very little meaningful distinction in traffic
volume between discussion and binary newsgroups, such that sites that
carry news can no longer easily filter out the binary material, and
keep their bandwidth and storage requirements to a manageable amount,
many sites may choose to drop many discussion newsgroups, or even drop
news altogether. The latter has already happened at many sites,
including AOL, MSN, and Comcast.

- Sites with more sophisticated filtering than that provided by standard
news server software may choose to filter out all posts that have
binary content, anyway. Already, Google Groups strips out any binary
contents from their newsgroups archive, mostly to avoid becoming a
de-facto free porno/pirated-warez server. Even a site like Google,
with nearly unlimited communications bandwidth and storage space, is
concerned about becoming a transmission vector for copyright
violations, viruses, and obscene material.

- It may even be a violation of your ISP's Terms of Service (TOS) or
Acceptable Usage Policy (AUP) to post binaries to a discussion
newsgroup.

--
73, Paul W. Schleck, K3FU

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

Paul:

But don't panic, I may be the only one capable of uuencoding a binary and
posting it, ya never know, well, except the one guy who already managed it
somehow...

John

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
Paul:

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

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

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...

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...

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

John

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

commander:

Furnish me with a URL to a document by usenet on the false specs you are
attempting to pass off on the un-witting hams, and others, here. Where is a
usenet "Official Faq" stating what you are claiming?


Try any of the following:


http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...1d33dcfe1ff321

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/finding-groups/general/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsgroups

http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/nobin.html


Even if you don't want to accept any of these articles as authoritative,
consider the validity of their basic arguments, which I've summarized
below:


- Many sites choose to carry only the discussion newsgroups, as the
binary newsgroups represent the overwhelming majority of Usenet
traffic volume (by an astonishing ratio of 300:1 as of 2002, according
to the first article referenced above).

- Sites can easily limit their news traffic to the much smaller
discussion newsgroups volume if binaries are restricted by convention
to newsgroups that have "binaries" in their names.

- Even if one poster posts "just one little binary" in a discussion
newsgroup, it can add up if others join in, especially multiplied over
many newsgroups (see "Tragedy of the Commons" at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons ).

- If this results in very little meaningful distinction in traffic
volume between discussion and binary newsgroups, such that sites that
carry news can no longer easily filter out the binary material, and
keep their bandwidth and storage requirements to a manageable amount,
many sites may choose to drop many discussion newsgroups, or even drop
news altogether. The latter has already happened at many sites,
including AOL, MSN, and Comcast.

- Sites with more sophisticated filtering than that provided by standard
news server software may choose to filter out all posts that have
binary content, anyway. Already, Google Groups strips out any binary
contents from their newsgroups archive, mostly to avoid becoming a
de-facto free porno/pirated-warez server. Even a site like Google,
with nearly unlimited communications bandwidth and storage space, is
concerned about becoming a transmission vector for copyright
violations, viruses, and obscene material.

- It may even be a violation of your ISP's Terms of Service (TOS) or
Acceptable Usage Policy (AUP) to post binaries to a discussion
newsgroup.

--
73, Paul W. Schleck, K3FU

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