| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
K1MAN PA means Pending Action, what happened Blapster ???
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 "Lloyd" wrote in message ... On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 01:30:47 GMT, Dan/W4NTI wrote: ***458 lines of crap snipped*** you are not supposed to be posting binary files in regular news groups and your ISP has a policy against that so you are voilating your TOS. you go around and call everyone else stupid and then do a real dumb thing which has never been alowed in regular news groups since the net was born. go back to your ancient cw because you shure as hell dont know squat about modren things like the net. you should live in glendale or in taylorville. |
commander:
I am not asking what you think "usenet convention" is, I am saying it is more than ok to uuencode binary and post it... Show me an official document by a legal representative of usenet or go away... John "Cmdr Buzz Corey" wrote in message ... 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 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:
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 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. |
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. |
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:
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..." ???? Similar to informal band plans, by gentlemen's agreements no binary file posting on non binary file newsgroups. "Binary" newsgroups are usually marked "alt.binaries.whatever" |
Robert:
I am aware that it would be "tacky" to start hundreds of binaries flowing in the group here. However, a uuencoded/decoded binary of pics of an op, shack, equip, antenna, object or place of interest, etc only enhances the newsgroup experience... But don't even get the idea these old farts are fooling me, they couldn't uuencode a binary and post it if their lives depended on it... and even if the pic was a hot mama in a thong--they'd die before uudecoding/seeing the pic! grin John "robert casey" wrote in message ink.net... 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..." ???? Similar to informal band plans, by gentlemen's agreements no binary file posting on non binary file newsgroups. "Binary" newsgroups are usually marked "alt.binaries.whatever" |
Robert:
Do you see a pattern here, they can't do it (from lack of knowledge and unwillingness to learn a new method), so they just attempt to stop everyone else--now there is the real "state of amateur radio today!" John "John Smith" wrote in message ... Robert: I am aware that it would be "tacky" to start hundreds of binaries flowing in the group here. However, a uuencoded/decoded binary of pics of an op, shack, equip, antenna, object or place of interest, etc only enhances the newsgroup experience... But don't even get the idea these old farts are fooling me, they couldn't uuencode a binary and post it if their lives depended on it... and even if the pic was a hot mama in a thong--they'd die before uudecoding/seeing the pic! grin John "robert casey" wrote in message ink.net... 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..." ???? Similar to informal band plans, by gentlemen's agreements no binary file posting on non binary file newsgroups. "Binary" newsgroups are usually marked "alt.binaries.whatever" |
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. |
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. |
robert casey 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..." ???? Similar to informal band plans, by gentlemen's agreements no binary file posting on non binary file newsgroups. "Binary" newsgroups are usually marked "alt.binaries.whatever" There is the problem, "gentlemen's agreement", but John is no gentleman, kinda like on the Childrens Band where he fits in real well. |
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. |
commander:
There is no "gentleman's agreement." What you got there is some crafty old farts attempting to pull the wool over peoples eyes with fancy "feel good terms" like "gentleman's agreement." You are a cheap shot idiot! Nothing angers me more quickly than a liar in sheep's clothing attempting to make fools out of the people he attempts to "get over on"... John "Cmdr Buzz Corey" wrote in message ... robert casey 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..." ???? Similar to informal band plans, by gentlemen's agreements no binary file posting on non binary file newsgroups. "Binary" newsgroups are usually marked "alt.binaries.whatever" There is the problem, "gentlemen's agreement", but John is no gentleman, kinda like on the Childrens Band where he fits in real well. |
commander:
I don't see the URL, did I miss it? John "Cmdr Buzz Corey" wrote in message ... John Smith wrote: commander: There is no "gentleman's agreement." What you got there is some crafty old farts attempting to pull the wool over peoples eyes with fancy "feel good terms" like "gentleman's agreement." You are a cheap shot idiot! Nothing angers me more quickly than a liar in sheep's clothing attempting to make fools out of the people he attempts to "get over on"... You seem to be able to make a fool out of yourself all too easily. |
John Smith wrote:
commander: There is no "gentleman's agreement." What you got there is some crafty old farts attempting to pull the wool over peoples eyes with fancy "feel good terms" like "gentleman's agreement." You are a cheap shot idiot! Nothing angers me more quickly than a liar in sheep's clothing attempting to make fools out of the people he attempts to "get over on"... You seem to be able to make a fool out of yourself all too easily. |
Cmdr Buzz Corey wrote:
There is the problem, "gentlemen's agreement", but John is no gentleman, kinda like on the Childrens Band where he fits in real well. JJ loves his CB..no need for a call there. -- http://NewsReader.Com/ |
Steveo:
Some ignorant hams think there is a BIG difference between 27.400 and 28.400mhz--AND THERE IS!!! .... a megacycle... John "Steveo" wrote in message ... Cmdr Buzz Corey wrote: There is the problem, "gentlemen's agreement", but John is no gentleman, kinda like on the Childrens Band where he fits in real well. JJ loves his CB..no need for a call there. -- http://NewsReader.Com/ |
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 |
an_old_friend:
Excellent, in the future I shall post a uuencoded test pic, tell me what the picture depicts and we will come up with some sort of fitting prize, perhaps a free URL to a website on hawaii! John "an old friend" wrote in message oups.com... 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 |
John Smith wrote:
Excellent, in the future I shall post a uuencoded test pic, tell me what the picture depicts and we will come up with some sort of fitting prize, perhaps a free URL to a website on hawaii! "John": I'm amazed that you are seemingly unaware that almost every e-mail program on the market decodes UUE automatically. The fact is, you shouldn't be doing so in a text newsgroup. Dave K8MN |
Dave:
Nothing wrong with moderate use of uuencoding in newsgroup, end of story! Go control freak on 160-80-75-etc... your false information is NOT welcome here... that is what ham radio has become, it has no place here on the internet... John "Dave Heil" wrote in message link.net... John Smith wrote: Excellent, in the future I shall post a uuencoded test pic, tell me what the picture depicts and we will come up with some sort of fitting prize, perhaps a free URL to a website on hawaii! "John": I'm amazed that you are seemingly unaware that almost every e-mail program on the market decodes UUE automatically. The fact is, you shouldn't be doing so in a text newsgroup. Dave K8MN |
"an old friend" wrote (BTW reading is about working what is there not about how you can twist it to mean what you want it to) I tried and I tried and I tried to "work what is" but that still comes out gibberish. |
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 |
wrote in message ups.com... 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!?! \ \ "Monerator" is a rator with Mono. "Rator" is a female rotor. Dan/W4NTI |
Lloyd:
The indians used to measure their greatness, by the greatness of their enemies. (true story) You force me to be tempted to measure mine by the "greatness of the number choosing to killfile me", but then, a bunch of killfiling idiots ain't so great... frown 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. |
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 Monerator Amateur-Radio-Experimentation Discussion Group 'snot monerated'...sounds pretty slick to me. Your really are a stupid twit, toad. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:29 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com