|
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 |
Lloyd:
I still don't see where any "usenet authorities" positions have been brought to this debate, other than the suggestion binaries be kept reasonable--except in those threads which are "mostly binary only" (however, I think those are mostly pervert/pedophile threads!) Indeed, if "usenet authorities" are here, they are only in your mind... .... you nitwit, reference this message to any group you like... SILLY GIRLY-MAN! ROFLOL!!!!! John "Lloyd" wrote in message ... On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 15:24:47 -0700, John Smith wrote: Paul: google groups are simply not acceptable, wikipedia is not acceptable... ... the other two simply recommend using common sense ... DUH!!! ***STOMP*** this guy is just a troll so dont pay attention to what he says Paul. if he really thinks he knows more than all those use net autorities, he is the fool he calls other people. but he is a troll and he is a bad one. he should be kill filed which is what I have just done to his sacramento ass. I will pray for his hellbound soul anyway becuase I think thats what Jesus would do. |
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!?! |
|
N9OGL:
Well, there ya go, trouble is, when you give control to an incompetent he is going to focus on control and being a disciplinarian, any real merit is lost. Any successful group must be flexible to the majority's rule, as only if the group is responsive and meets the needs of those is it valid--problems with a "control freak" moderator are the same--most newsgroups with such do not survive--about as many posting as QSO's on HF, they begin dying--moderated newsgroups. Only reason I don't send binaries, pics etc in moderation here, no one intelligent to uudecode them (also, there has just not been a need), that is obvious and really what the center of most problems we are speaking of--control freaks managing to having halted progress... John "N9OGL" wrote in message oups.com... 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 |
K4YZ wrote: Allow me to try an translate this into English. wrote: N9OGL wrote: The rules to Newsgroups vary from newsgroup to newsgroup...(SNIP) The rules and protocols for posting vary from newsgroup to newsgroup. (UNSNIP)...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. break Rec.radio.amateur.policy is not a moderated newsgroup. There is no moderator to ensure compliance with discussion group parameters or maintain civility amongst participants. then why do you seek to ursurb that role? Why do you sepnd so much time trying to force other to folow YOUR ideas of how this group should function unless it is a discussion group rule, again the rules vary from discussion group to discussion group then it alright. He's got me there. I am sure there was a "point" there, but most likely just the top of his head. Todd N9OGL Toad, what's a "Monerator", STUPID!?! We need to get him and Markie to start submitting their made-up words to Webster's for deciphering. I still think Toiddie has a good case against the Taylorville Public Schools for letting him graduate High School with those horrific English skills. And Markie's always looking to sue SOMEone...He ought to go after the school district that let HIM loose. now libeling an entire school system Stevie and making up more stuff about me Never looking to sue anyone, not even you, althoughyou do insist on straining that one but then Your HS let you out without even teaching you to read, properly (BTW reading is about working what is there not about how you can twist it to mean what you want it to) 73 Steve, K4YZ |
John Smith wrote: N9OGL: Well, there ya go, trouble is, when you give control to an incompetent he is going to focus on control and being a disciplinarian, any real merit is lost. Any successful group must be flexible to the majority's rule, as only if the group is responsive and meets the needs of those is it valid--problems with a "control freak" moderator are the same--most newsgroups with such do not survive--about as many posting as QSO's on HF, they begin dying--moderated newsgroups. Only reason I don't send binaries, pics etc in moderation here, no one intelligent to uudecode them (also, there has just not been a need), that is obvious and really what the center of most problems we are speaking of--control freaks managing to having halted progress... I take issue with that I could decode them still know where a copy of that stuff is John "N9OGL" wrote in message oups.com... 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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:12 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com