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

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

Paul:

I realize YOU wish to see binary banned, I realize YOU are NOT alone...

I think you can probably come up with a lot of reasons YOU think they should be
banned--and are good enough, but, freedom of exchange over-rides anything you
can come up with! end of story...

But, they are not good enough reasons to block the exchange of ideas, there is
no "gentleman's agreement", there is a bunch of cheap-shot idiots like you
attempting to push your control on the mindless.

You think if you argue long enough and hard enough you may pull the wool over
the simple minded masses eyes.

This is the internet, it was founded on the idea of free, un-hindered exchange
of information and data--you are best suited for the amateur bands where the
common mode is to suppress freedoms through regulations--GO HOME, DO NOT DARKEN
OUR DOORSTEPS!!!

You are nothing but a simple idiot we have seen before, and dealt with...

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

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

The rules to Newsgroups vary from newsgroup to newsgroup, the problem
with this group (rec.radio.amateur.policy) is that it'snot monerated,
or it is and the monerator isn't doing there job.
unless it is a discussion group rule, again the rules vary from
discussion group to discussion group then it alright.

Todd N9OGL
Monerator
Amateur-Radio-Experimentation

Discussion Group

N9OGL wrote:
The rules to Newsgroups vary from newsgroup to newsgroup, the problem
with this group (rec.radio.amateur.policy) is that it'snot monerated,
or it is and the monerator isn't doing there job.
unless it is a discussion group rule, again the rules vary from
discussion group to discussion group then it alright.

Todd N9OGL

Toad, what's a "Monerator", STUPID!?!