Discussion:
Google Groups is dropping Usenet support in February
(too old to reply)
Arthur T.
2023-12-15 02:08:59 UTC
Permalink
In a couple of months, we may not need to filter out Google posters:

https://support.google.com/groups/answer/11036538?visit_id=638381921477344227-87081626&p=usenet&rd=1#hcfe-content
--
Arthur T. - ar23hur "at" pobox "dot" com
John
2023-12-15 02:37:48 UTC
Permalink
https://support.google.com/groups/answer/11036538 ?...yadayada...
https://support.google.com/groups/answer/11036538 works, too.

Many pages work when we elide everything after and including the
"?" that starts the list of arguments for the scripts.

Not, unfortunately, all.

J.
micky
2023-12-15 16:46:59 UTC
Permalink
In alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent, on Thu, 14 Dec 2023 21:08:59
Post by Arthur T.
https://support.google.com/groups/answer/11036538?visit_id=638381921477344227-87081626&p=usenet&rd=1#hcfe-content
It doesn't say anything about Google returning the software and
connections to Dejanews. I think that's the least they could do.
micky
2023-12-15 17:13:11 UTC
Permalink
In comp.mobile.android, on Fri, 15 Dec 2023 11:46:59 -0500, micky
Post by micky
In alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent, on Thu, 14 Dec 2023 21:08:59
Post by Arthur T.
https://support.google.com/groups/answer/11036538?visit_id=638381921477344227-87081626&p=usenet&rd=1#hcfe-content
It doesn't say anything about Google returning the software and
connections to Dejanews. I think that's the least they could do.
"Find a new public Usenet server. The new client you choose will likely
have a default server or a set of curated options for you. If not, to
find a server, do a web search for "public NNTP servers.""

Will likely have a default server? I've never heard of that.

"declined significantly because users have moved to more modern
technologies and formats such as social media and web-based forums."
Yes, they are more "modern" but they are certainly not as good. I once
made a list of 15 reasons they are nowhere near as good as Usenet. But
this is just a comment. It's not google's faulth that Usenet use
declined.
pyotr filipivich
2023-12-15 19:03:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by micky
In comp.mobile.android, on Fri, 15 Dec 2023 11:46:59 -0500, micky
Post by micky
In alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent, on Thu, 14 Dec 2023 21:08:59
Post by Arthur T.
https://support.google.com/groups/answer/11036538?visit_id=638381921477344227-87081626&p=usenet&rd=1#hcfe-content
It doesn't say anything about Google returning the software and
connections to Dejanews. I think that's the least they could do.
"Find a new public Usenet server. The new client you choose will likely
have a default server or a set of curated options for you. If not, to
find a server, do a web search for "public NNTP servers.""
Will likely have a default server? I've never heard of that.
"declined significantly because users have moved to more modern
technologies and formats such as social media and web-based forums."
Yes, they are more "modern" but they are certainly not as good. I once
made a list of 15 reasons they are nowhere near as good as Usenet. But
this is just a comment. It's not google's faulth that Usenet use
declined.
Ummm, have you tried to use Google Groups"? I have trouble
finding posts I recently made, let alone anything prior to previous
decade.
--
pyotr filipivich
This Week's Panel: Us & Them - Eliminating Them.
Next Month's Panel: Having eliminated the old Them(tm)
Selecting who insufficiently Woke(tm) as to serve as the new Them(tm)
Stan Brown
2023-12-15 23:47:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by micky
It's not google's faulth that Usenet use
declined.
That's a matter of opinion.

It seems to me that Google did everything it could to destroy Usenet.
It dumped spam into many groups to the point that they became
unusable, and ignored complaints over a period of years. I may be
misremembering this part, but I _think_ they used nonstandard headers
that made problems for existing Usenet clients.

And of course they made the archives unavailable, then available if
you were lucky in your searching, then unavailable again, then
available but you had to use effing Javascript, then unavailable, the
available but not all groups were included, then ...
--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...
Wally J
2023-12-16 02:25:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan Brown
It's not google's faulth that Usenet use declined.
That's a matter of opinion.
It seems to me that Google did everything it could to destroy Usenet.
It dumped spam into many groups to the point that they became
unusable, and ignored complaints over a period of years. I may be
misremembering this part, but I _think_ they used nonstandard headers
that made problems for existing Usenet clients.
And of course they made the archives unavailable, then available if
you were lucky in your searching, then unavailable again, then
available but you had to use effing Javascript, then unavailable, the
available but not all groups were included, then ...
FYI... these are what appear to be google's lies as to why they dropped it.
<https://support.google.com/groups/answer/11036538>

To catch up on the details, some here have been discussing it over here:
*Effective February 15, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support new Usenet content*
<https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.peering/c/_w1mbwzgzs0>

Which is a followup to this original request for who is peering this spam:
*Who is peering all these spams ostensibly from Google Groups?*
<https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.peering/c/AgrNUeZuAkw>

Which itself was followed up in a request for people to complain to Google:
*Please complain to Google about their spamming of Usenet*
<https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.peering/c/xxniDVj3ArI>

In summary, the free newsservers may expect a possible inrush coming up.
--
FYI... There are somewhat similar alternatives, but they're not the same.
<http://groups.google.com/g/alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent>
<https://alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent.narkive.com>
<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/thread.php?group=alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent>
g***@aol.com
2023-12-20 00:53:22 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 22:25:37 -0400, Wally J
Post by Wally J
In summary, the free newsservers may expect a possible inrush coming up.
The free news servers are free because they can sift enough customer
data to pay for the server and some profit.

The EULA nobody reads is different for a subscription contract. "Free"
is if they can get it, they can sell it.
If you pay enough, you can opt out entirely.
micky
2023-12-16 04:18:47 UTC
Permalink
In comp.mobile.android, on Fri, 15 Dec 2023 15:47:16 -0800, Stan Brown
Post by Stan Brown
Post by micky
It's not google's faulth that Usenet use
declined.
That's a matter of opinion.
It seems to me that Google did everything it could to destroy Usenet.
It dumped spam into many groups to the point that they became
unusable, and ignored complaints over a period of years. I may be
misremembering this part, but I _think_ they used nonstandard headers
that made problems for existing Usenet clients.
I didnt' know about these things.
Post by Stan Brown
And of course they made the archives unavailable, then available if
you were lucky in your searching, then unavailable again, then
available but you had to use effing Javascript, then unavailable, the
available but not all groups were included, then ...
Jörg Lorenz
2023-12-16 05:31:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan Brown
Post by micky
It's not google's faulth that Usenet use
declined.
That's a matter of opinion.
It seems to me that Google did everything it could to destroy Usenet.
It dumped spam into many groups to the point that they became
unusable, and ignored complaints over a period of years. I may be
misremembering this part, but I _think_ they used nonstandard headers
that made problems for existing Usenet clients.
Wrong and all conspiracy theory. Just a lack of support and maintenance
of an economically uninspiring service.
Post by Stan Brown
And of course they made the archives unavailable, then available if
you were lucky in your searching, then unavailable again, then
available but you had to use effing Javascript, then unavailable, the
available but not all groups were included, then ...
As I said: Lack of proper maintenance.
--
"Roma locuta, causa finita." (Augustinus)
Paul S Person
2023-12-16 16:16:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jörg Lorenz
Post by Stan Brown
Post by micky
It's not google's faulth that Usenet use
declined.
That's a matter of opinion.
It seems to me that Google did everything it could to destroy Usenet.
It dumped spam into many groups to the point that they became
unusable, and ignored complaints over a period of years. I may be
misremembering this part, but I _think_ they used nonstandard headers
that made problems for existing Usenet clients.
Wrong and all conspiracy theory. Just a lack of support and maintenance
of an economically uninspiring service.
Post by Stan Brown
And of course they made the archives unavailable, then available if
you were lucky in your searching, then unavailable again, then
available but you had to use effing Javascript, then unavailable, the
available but not all groups were included, then ...
As I said: Lack of proper maintenance.
IOW, it was sabotaged at a higher level by not allowing (never mind
funding or requiring) the maintenance.

Well, if it was sabotaged at all, of course. It /could/ just be
incompetence. At all levels, up to the tippy-top.

Although my experience with managers is that they would very much
prefer to be thought of as deliberately evil than as incompentent.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"
Frank Slootweg
2023-12-16 18:47:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jörg Lorenz
Post by Stan Brown
Post by micky
It's not google's faulth that Usenet use
declined.
That's a matter of opinion.
It seems to me that Google did everything it could to destroy Usenet.
It dumped spam into many groups to the point that they became
unusable, and ignored complaints over a period of years. I may be
misremembering this part, but I _think_ they used nonstandard headers
that made problems for existing Usenet clients.
Wrong and all conspiracy theory. Just a lack of support and maintenance
of an economically uninspiring service.
Nope, Stan is correct on all points, no conspiracy theory at all.

The spam issue is obvious and they indeed broke headers, mainly
References and Message-ID, by not honouring the NetNews mantra of "Don't
break old clients!".
Post by Jörg Lorenz
Post by Stan Brown
And of course they made the archives unavailable, then available if
you were lucky in your searching, then unavailable again, then
available but you had to use effing Javascript, then unavailable, the
available but not all groups were included, then ...
As I said: Lack of proper maintenance.
Nope again. As Stan says, they changed/broke the search facility for
searching Usenet posts and the facility for referencing Usenet articles
by message-id several times. That they *also* maintained the service/
servers badly does not negate the points he made.
micky
2023-12-17 02:31:23 UTC
Permalink
In comp.mobile.android, on 16 Dec 2023 18:47:49 GMT, Frank Slootweg
Post by Frank Slootweg
Post by Jörg Lorenz
Post by Stan Brown
Post by micky
It's not google's faulth that Usenet use
declined.
That's a matter of opinion.
It seems to me that Google did everything it could to destroy Usenet.
It dumped spam into many groups to the point that they became
unusable, and ignored complaints over a period of years. I may be
misremembering this part, but I _think_ they used nonstandard headers
that made problems for existing Usenet clients.
Wrong and all conspiracy theory. Just a lack of support and maintenance
of an economically uninspiring service.
Nope, Stan is correct on all points, no conspiracy theory at all.
A basic problem here.

You are using 'conspiracy theory' to mean something that does not exist,
at the same time saying that google planned to destroy the usenet part
of groups.google. That is, by most lights, a conspiracy.

You're by far not the only one. Loads of people calling in about news
and even reading the news on network tv ridicule conspiracies in one
sentence while talking seriously about conspiracies to steal the
election.
Post by Frank Slootweg
The spam issue is obvious and they indeed broke headers, mainly
References and Message-ID, by not honouring the NetNews mantra of "Don't
break old clients!".
Post by Jörg Lorenz
Post by Stan Brown
And of course they made the archives unavailable, then available if
you were lucky in your searching, then unavailable again, then
available but you had to use effing Javascript, then unavailable, the
available but not all groups were included, then ...
As I said: Lack of proper maintenance.
Nope again. As Stan says, they changed/broke the search facility for
searching Usenet posts and the facility for referencing Usenet articles
by message-id several times. That they *also* maintained the service/
servers badly does not negate the points he made.
Frank Slootweg
2023-12-17 18:51:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by micky
In comp.mobile.android, on 16 Dec 2023 18:47:49 GMT, Frank Slootweg
Post by Frank Slootweg
Post by Jörg Lorenz
Post by Stan Brown
Post by micky
It's not google's faulth that Usenet use
declined.
That's a matter of opinion.
It seems to me that Google did everything it could to destroy Usenet.
It dumped spam into many groups to the point that they became
unusable, and ignored complaints over a period of years. I may be
misremembering this part, but I _think_ they used nonstandard headers
that made problems for existing Usenet clients.
Wrong and all conspiracy theory. Just a lack of support and maintenance
of an economically uninspiring service.
Nope, Stan is correct on all points, no conspiracy theory at all.
A basic problem here.
You are using 'conspiracy theory' to mean something that does not exist,
at the same time saying that google planned to destroy the usenet part
of groups.google. That is, by most lights, a conspiracy.
You're 'reading' things which were never written.

I didn't say Google 'planned' anything. I just agreed with what Stan
said and Stan also didn't say anything about 'planning'. Google's
actions are easily explained by incompetence, carelessness, etc., not a
'plan', but yes, Google did those things, which is what Stan said.

[Rather offensive stuff deleted.]
Post by micky
Post by Frank Slootweg
The spam issue is obvious and they indeed broke headers, mainly
References and Message-ID, by not honouring the NetNews mantra of "Don't
break old clients!".
Post by Jörg Lorenz
Post by Stan Brown
And of course they made the archives unavailable, then available if
you were lucky in your searching, then unavailable again, then
available but you had to use effing Javascript, then unavailable, the
available but not all groups were included, then ...
As I said: Lack of proper maintenance.
Nope again. As Stan says, they changed/broke the search facility for
searching Usenet posts and the facility for referencing Usenet articles
by message-id several times. That they *also* maintained the service/
servers badly does not negate the points he made.
micky
2023-12-17 21:09:21 UTC
Permalink
In alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent, on 17 Dec 2023 18:51:07 GMT,
Post by Frank Slootweg
Post by micky
In comp.mobile.android, on 16 Dec 2023 18:47:49 GMT, Frank Slootweg
Post by Frank Slootweg
Post by Jörg Lorenz
Post by Stan Brown
Post by micky
It's not google's faulth that Usenet use
declined.
That's a matter of opinion.
It seems to me that Google did everything it could to destroy Usenet.
It dumped spam into many groups to the point that they became
unusable, and ignored complaints over a period of years. I may be
misremembering this part, but I _think_ they used nonstandard headers
that made problems for existing Usenet clients.
Wrong and all conspiracy theory. Just a lack of support and maintenance
of an economically uninspiring service.
Nope, Stan is correct on all points, no conspiracy theory at all.
A basic problem here.
You are using 'conspiracy theory' to mean something that does not exist,
at the same time saying that google planned to destroy the usenet part
of groups.google. That is, by most lights, a conspiracy.
You're 'reading' things which were never written.
I didn't say Google 'planned' anything. I just agreed with what Stan
said and Stan also didn't say anything about 'planning'. Google's
My point really had nothing to do with Google or Stan or you, only with
the way people deride some conspiracy stories as conspiracy theories,
while the same people believe in and talk about, complain about other
conspiracies*** which they do not label as theories, because they
believe in them. At the same time, some people label as conspiracy
theories things that really happened.

***Whether they use the word conspiracy or not.

In this case, Stan believes in what he said and Jorg derides it by
calling it a conspiracy theory, and you deny it's a conspiracy theory,
but given the way "conspiracy theory" is used, for things that did not
happen, I think not being a conspiracy theory still leaves open the
possibility it was a conspiracy.

As you say, you just agreed with Stan but Stan said "It seems to me that
Google did everything it could to destroy Usenet. It dumped spam into
many groups to the point that they became unusable, and ignored
complaints over a period of years...." Doing everthing it could, *it
could*, is a plan and plainly several people were involved if what Stan
described happened. If there were two or more people from Google
involved, it's a conspiracy.
Post by Frank Slootweg
actions are easily explained by incompetence, carelessness, etc., not a
'plan',
You're right, no plan needed, but I think it's clear Stan thinks it was
planned. But my words were not personal wrt any of you. It was just
about the use of language. I don't care if you think Google planned it
or not.
Post by Frank Slootweg
but yes, Google did those things, which is what Stan said.
[Rather offensive stuff deleted.]
Curious who it was offensive to? Almost every American** who reads the
news thinks there was an effort by one side or the other to steal the
last presidentail election. I purposely phrased it to not say which side
I thought was doing that. So did I offend everyone, or no one?

**If trump won, then the Democrats must have stolen it and if Biden won,
the Republicans must have been trying to steal it.

The actions that have been charged on both sides cannot be accounted for
by incompetence, carelessnes, laziness, etc.

(Not all the Democrats or all the Republicans but whichever it was, it
would have to be a significant number of them.)
Post by Frank Slootweg
Post by micky
Post by Frank Slootweg
The spam issue is obvious and they indeed broke headers, mainly
References and Message-ID, by not honouring the NetNews mantra of "Don't
break old clients!".
Post by Jörg Lorenz
Post by Stan Brown
And of course they made the archives unavailable, then available if
you were lucky in your searching, then unavailable again, then
available but you had to use effing Javascript, then unavailable, the
available but not all groups were included, then ...
As I said: Lack of proper maintenance.
Nope again. As Stan says, they changed/broke the search facility for
searching Usenet posts and the facility for referencing Usenet articles
by message-id several times. That they *also* maintained the service/
servers badly does not negate the points he made.
Paul S Person
2023-12-18 16:20:22 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 17 Dec 2023 16:09:21 -0500, micky <***@fmguy.com>
wrote:

<good point about those attacking conpiracy theories often having a
conspiracy theory of their own -- /if/ I understand the discussion>
Post by micky
Curious who it was offensive to? Almost every American** who reads the
news thinks there was an effort by one side or the other to steal the
last presidentail election. I purposely phrased it to not say which side
I thought was doing that. So did I offend everyone, or no one?
**If trump won, then the Democrats must have stolen it and if Biden won,
the Republicans must have been trying to steal it.
Ten years ago, I would have been certain that this should have started
"If trump lost," -- but, considering Trump's reaction to his /win/ in
2016, the statement is resonable.

Note that the statement being "reasonable" is not the same as it being
"sane". It just means that some Republicans might well have attributed
a 2020 Trump victory to Democrats stealing the election.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"
Frank Slootweg
2023-12-19 13:11:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by micky
In alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent, on 17 Dec 2023 18:51:07 GMT,
Post by Frank Slootweg
Post by micky
In comp.mobile.android, on 16 Dec 2023 18:47:49 GMT, Frank Slootweg
Post by Frank Slootweg
Post by Jörg Lorenz
Post by Stan Brown
Post by micky
It's not google's faulth that Usenet use
declined.
That's a matter of opinion.
It seems to me that Google did everything it could to destroy Usenet.
It dumped spam into many groups to the point that they became
unusable, and ignored complaints over a period of years. I may be
misremembering this part, but I _think_ they used nonstandard headers
that made problems for existing Usenet clients.
Wrong and all conspiracy theory. Just a lack of support and maintenance
of an economically uninspiring service.
Nope, Stan is correct on all points, no conspiracy theory at all.
A basic problem here.
You are using 'conspiracy theory' to mean something that does not exist,
at the same time saying that google planned to destroy the usenet part
of groups.google. That is, by most lights, a conspiracy.
You're 'reading' things which were never written.
I didn't say Google 'planned' anything. I just agreed with what Stan
said and Stan also didn't say anything about 'planning'. Google's
My point really had nothing to do with Google or Stan or you,
Then don't say "You". Quite simple. really.
Post by micky
only with
the way people deride some conspiracy stories as conspiracy theories,
while the same people believe in and talk about, complain about other
conspiracies*** which they do not label as theories, because they
believe in them. At the same time, some people label as conspiracy
theories things that really happened.
***Whether they use the word conspiracy or not.
In this case, Stan believes in what he said and Jorg derides it by
calling it a conspiracy theory, and you deny it's a conspiracy theory,
but given the way "conspiracy theory" is used, for things that did not
happen, I think not being a conspiracy theory still leaves open the
possibility it was a conspiracy.
The meaning of the word "conspiracy" is quite clear. And I made quite
clear that I don't think it was a conspiracy, because it wasn't a plan,
let alone a secret one, let alone one with ill/unlawful/harmful/
<whatever>intent.
Post by micky
As you say, you just agreed with Stan but Stan said "It seems to me that
Google did everything it could to destroy Usenet. It dumped spam into
many groups to the point that they became unusable, and ignored
complaints over a period of years...." Doing everthing it could, *it
could*, is a plan and plainly several people were involved if what Stan
described happened. If there were two or more people from Google
involved, it's a conspiracy.
Nope. It's quite possible to do "everything one can" without any kind
of "plan". I'm trying "everything I can" to try to understand how you
can present *actions* as a "plan" and even a secret one to do something
bad (i.e. a "consiracy"). Is me trying "everything I can" a "plan"?
Nope, it just action.
Post by micky
Post by Frank Slootweg
actions are easily explained by incompetence, carelessness, etc., not a
'plan',
You're right, no plan needed, but I think it's clear Stan thinks it was
planned. But my words were not personal wrt any of you. It was just
about the use of language. I don't care if you think Google planned it
or not.
That may well be, but I object to misrepresenting what I wrote under
the label "You". So you may not have intended your words to be personal,
but they turned out personal.
Post by micky
Post by Frank Slootweg
but yes, Google did those things, which is what Stan said.
[Rather offensive stuff deleted.]
Curious who it was offensive to? Almost every American** who reads the
news thinks there was an effort by one side or the other to steal the
last presidentail election. I purposely phrased it to not say which side
I thought was doing that. So did I offend everyone, or no one?
Your (deleted) text was:

<M>
You're by far not the only one. Loads of people calling in about news
and even reading the news on network tv ridicule conspiracies in one
sentence while talking seriously about conspiracies to steal the
election.
</M>

Being associated - even remotely - with ("You're by far not the only
one.") this American idiciocy, is offensive to any sane person, at least
it's to me and probably to most non-Americans.

I hope I made clear why I objected to what you wrote. No ill feelings,
but I couldn't just let this pass.
Post by micky
**If trump won, then the Democrats must have stolen it and if Biden won,
the Republicans must have been trying to steal it.
The actions that have been charged on both sides cannot be accounted for
by incompetence, carelessnes, laziness, etc.
(Not all the Democrats or all the Republicans but whichever it was, it
would have to be a significant number of them.)
Post by Frank Slootweg
Post by micky
Post by Frank Slootweg
The spam issue is obvious and they indeed broke headers, mainly
References and Message-ID, by not honouring the NetNews mantra of "Don't
break old clients!".
Post by Jörg Lorenz
Post by Stan Brown
And of course they made the archives unavailable, then available if
you were lucky in your searching, then unavailable again, then
available but you had to use effing Javascript, then unavailable, the
available but not all groups were included, then ...
As I said: Lack of proper maintenance.
Nope again. As Stan says, they changed/broke the search facility for
searching Usenet posts and the facility for referencing Usenet articles
by message-id several times. That they *also* maintained the service/
servers badly does not negate the points he made.
Paul S Person
2023-12-19 16:48:52 UTC
Permalink
<snippo>
Post by Frank Slootweg
Post by micky
My point really had nothing to do with Google or Stan or you,
Then don't say "You". Quite simple. really.
<more snippo>
Post by Frank Slootweg
Post by micky
You're right, no plan needed, but I think it's clear Stan thinks it was
planned. But my words were not personal wrt any of you. It was just
about the use of language. I don't care if you think Google planned it
or not.
That may well be, but I object to misrepresenting what I wrote under
the label "You". So you may not have intended your words to be personal,
but they turned out personal.
I often (but not often enough, I suspect) reword my own responses to
replace "you" with "one" when confusion on this point is possible.

The "you're right" is directed at you. The others may (or may not) be
more general. There are, after all, several others involved, and "you"
can be plural as well as singular.

If the shoe doesn't fit -- one don't have to wear it.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"
Frank Slootweg
2023-12-19 19:12:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
<snippo>
Post by Frank Slootweg
Post by micky
My point really had nothing to do with Google or Stan or you,
Then don't say "You". Quite simple. really.
<more snippo>
Post by Frank Slootweg
Post by micky
You're right, no plan needed, but I think it's clear Stan thinks it was
planned. But my words were not personal wrt any of you. It was just
about the use of language. I don't care if you think Google planned it
or not.
That may well be, but I object to misrepresenting what I wrote under
the label "You". So you may not have intended your words to be personal,
but they turned out personal.
I often (but not often enough, I suspect) reword my own responses to
replace "you" with "one" when confusion on this point is possible.
One (tries to) do the same. :-)
Post by Paul S Person
The "you're right" is directed at you. The others may (or may not) be
more general. There are, after all, several others involved, and "you"
can be plural as well as singular.
All valid points, but what triggered my first response was Micky's
very first paragraph:

<M>
A basic problem here.

You are using 'conspiracy theory' to mean something that does not exist,
at the same time saying that google planned to destroy the usenet part
of groups.google. That is, by most lights, a conspiracy.
</M>

In this case, the "You" in "You are using" is either directed at me or
incorrectly worded, (also) because the rest of the sentence applies to
what I said/agreed_with (except, as noted, for the "planned" bit).
Post by Paul S Person
If the shoe doesn't fit -- one don't have to wear it.
In some other thread I've read Micky is going on a holiday, so all the
best to him.

BTW, we wear wooden shoes, they always fit.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klomp>
g***@aol.com
2023-12-20 00:59:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by micky
A basic problem here.
You are using 'conspiracy theory' to mean something that does not exist,
at the same time saying that google planned to destroy the usenet part
of groups.google. That is, by most lights, a conspiracy.
You're by far not the only one. Loads of people calling in about news
and even reading the news on network tv ridicule conspiracies in one
sentence while talking seriously about conspiracies to steal the
election.
Isn't it just possible that younger people think Usenet is old
fashioned and too techy for them? They want their screen to have a lot
of flash, cartoons and you never type anything.
m***@privacy.net
2023-12-28 23:53:12 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 15:47:16 -0800, Stan Brown
Post by Stan Brown
Post by micky
It's not google's faulth that Usenet use
declined.
That's a matter of opinion.
It seems to me that Google did everything it could to destroy Usenet.
It dumped spam into many groups to the point that they became
unusable, and ignored complaints over a period of years. I may be
misremembering this part, but I _think_ they used nonstandard headers
that made problems for existing Usenet clients.
And of course they made the archives unavailable, then available if
you were lucky in your searching, then unavailable again, then
available but you had to use effing Javascript, then unavailable, the
available but not all groups were included, then ...
Im sure glad a few people are still on Usenet!

Im trying to come back to it.
s|b
2024-01-02 19:49:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@privacy.net
Im sure glad a few people are still on Usenet!
Im trying to come back to it.
Then you should change that fake e-mailadres; ES doesn't allow it and
I'm sure the real owner of privacy.net doesn't appreciate it either.
--
s|b
Sam
2024-01-03 03:37:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by s|b
Then you should change that fake e-mailadres; ES doesn't allow it and
I'm sure the real owner of privacy.net doesn't appreciate it either.
Privacy.net created that email address for people to use to keep there
anonymity. It is a valid address, but no one ever reads the emails.
s|b
2024-01-06 13:15:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam
Privacy.net created that email address for people to use to keep there
anonymity. It is a valid address, but no one ever reads the emails.
I know, but AFAIK the domain has a different owner. It used to be that
the owner gave his explicit permission to use meATprivacy.net (I think
even me1, me2, ...), but it doesn't say so anymore.
--
s|b
g***@aol.com
2023-12-20 00:39:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by micky
In comp.mobile.android, on Fri, 15 Dec 2023 11:46:59 -0500, micky
Post by micky
In alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent, on Thu, 14 Dec 2023 21:08:59
Post by Arthur T.
https://support.google.com/groups/answer/11036538?visit_id=638381921477344227-87081626&p=usenet&rd=1#hcfe-content
It doesn't say anything about Google returning the software and
connections to Dejanews. I think that's the least they could do.
"Find a new public Usenet server. The new client you choose will likely
have a default server or a set of curated options for you. If not, to
find a server, do a web search for "public NNTP servers.""
Will likely have a default server? I've never heard of that.
"declined significantly because users have moved to more modern
technologies and formats such as social media and web-based forums."
Yes, they are more "modern" but they are certainly not as good. I once
made a list of 15 reasons they are nowhere near as good as Usenet. But
this is just a comment. It's not google's faulth that Usenet use
declined.
Usenet is either going to become an ad based service or it will be a
subscription service. There ain't no free lunch.
Ralph Fox
2023-12-15 19:07:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by micky
It doesn't say anything about Google returning the software and
connections to Dejanews. I think that's the least they could do.
Dejanews who?

You might remember that Deja had shut down the DejaNews archive some
time before Google acquired it. Deja no longer wanted to run the
DejaNews archive.
--
Kind regards
Ralph Fox
🦊

The Priest forgets that he was a clerk.
micky
2023-12-15 19:31:43 UTC
Permalink
In alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent, on Sat, 16 Dec 2023 08:07:08
Post by Ralph Fox
Post by micky
It doesn't say anything about Google returning the software and
connections to Dejanews. I think that's the least they could do.
Dejanews who?
You might remember that Deja had shut down the DejaNews archive some
time before Google acquired it. Deja no longer wanted to run the
DejaNews archive.
I don't remember if I knew that. But it's a new generation now! Maybe
we can talk them into it. I just need some money for air fare and the
hotel.
The Horny Goat
2023-12-15 20:18:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by micky
Post by Arthur T.
https://support.google.com/groups/answer/11036538?visit_id=638381921477344227-87081626&p=usenet&rd=1#hcfe-content
It doesn't say anything about Google returning the software and
connections to Dejanews. I think that's the least they could do.
No question the Internet Archive or whatever the name of the week is
is a valuable tool. I've found my first post to be April 1994 but
there may well be a few before that - I was one of the old Fidonet
grognards who stayed there as long as possible before coming over back
in the days my net service tied up the phone line at night...
shawn
2023-12-16 23:51:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by micky
Post by Arthur T.
https://support.google.com/groups/answer/11036538?visit_id=638381921477344227-87081626&p=usenet&rd=1#hcfe-content
It doesn't say anything about Google returning the software and
connections to Dejanews. I think that's the least they could do.
No question the Internet Archive or whatever the name of the week is
is a valuable tool. I've found my first post to be April 1994 but
there may well be a few before that - I was one of the old Fidonet
grognards who stayed there as long as possible before coming over back
in the days my net service tied up the phone line at night...
LOL. Not sure I can find my first posts but I know I started either in
1988 or 89. Though I think I had seen it back in 1982/3. I know my
school had an Associated Press feed coming in, but I think they also
had Usenet back then. Though I didn't have an account then so didn't
post anything. It was only in '88 when I got an account with the JDYX
BBS that provided Unix shell accounts. Which allowed the users to get
access to Usenet.
VanguardLH
2023-12-16 07:34:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by micky
Post by Arthur T.
https://support.google.com/groups/answer/11036538
It doesn't say anything about Google returning the software and
connections to Dejanews. I think that's the least they could do.
When you no longer want your deceased dad's inheritence, you go to the
cemetary to give it back to your dead dad in his grave?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Groups#Deja_News

Once Google acquired DejaNews, DejaNews ceased to exist.
micky
2023-12-16 09:10:46 UTC
Permalink
In alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent, on Sat, 16 Dec 2023 01:34:34
Post by VanguardLH
Post by micky
Post by Arthur T.
https://support.google.com/groups/answer/11036538
It doesn't say anything about Google returning the software and
connections to Dejanews. I think that's the least they could do.
When you no longer want your deceased dad's inheritence, you go to the
cemetary to give it back to your dead dad in his grave?
Sure, why not. He's entitled to first refusal. But I never stopped
wanting my inheritance, unlike GG.
Post by VanguardLH
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Groups#Deja_News
Once Google acquired DejaNews, DejaNews ceased to exist.
That's sad.
Stan Brown
2023-12-16 15:50:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by VanguardLH
[quoted text muted]
Post by Arthur T.
https://support.google.com/groups/answer/11036538
It doesn't say anything about Google returning the software and
connections to Dejanews. I think that's the least they could do.
When you no longer want your deceased dad's inheritence, you go to the
cemetary to give it back to your dead dad in his grave?
Excellent analogy!
--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...
Loading...