Whats the point in these groups?

[Laser Lips]

What the point in these group if idiots can post SPAM about Viagra and
Alah?

Is'nt there an admin layer to all this? Someone who can delete spam?

It completely ruins the experience. Someone pull their finger out and
do something about it?

 

[Gregor Kofler]

Laser Lips meinte:

What the point in these group if idiots can post SPAM about Viagra and
Alah?

Is'nt there an admin layer to all this? Someone who can delete spam?

It completely ruins the experience. Someone pull their finger out and
do something about it?

Yes. Google could. Haven't we had a discussion about captchas and their
useful^Wuselessness recently?

Gregor

 

[Richard Cornford]

What the point in these group if idiots can post SPAM
about Viagra and Alah?

So the point of e-mail would be? (another medium that is not immune
from spam)

Is'nt there an admin layer to all this? Someone who can
delete spam?

What did your research into Usenet tell you about that?

It completely ruins the experience. Someone pull their
finger out and do something about it?

Is that implied criticism of some unknown individual/group for not
doing what you are clearly too lazy to do for yourself?

Richard.

 

[Laser Lips]

So the point of e-mail would be? (another medium that is not immune
from spam)


What did your research into Usenet tell you about that?


Is that implied criticism of some unknown individual/group for not
doing what you are clearly too lazy to do for yourself?

Richard.

What are you on about Dick? I don't use Usenet ...I simply log on to
Google groups.

How am I being lazy? In what sense am I being lazy?
I don't get these things through email whatsoever. I log in and view
them.

 

[Laser Lips]

Yes. Google could. Haven't we had a discussion about captchas and their
useful^Wuselessness recently?

Gregor

We did indeed Gregor but it look slike these recent post about 'Jesus'
and 'Alah' have been posted by a human.

 

[Erwin Moller]

Laser Lips schreef:

What the point in these group if idiots can post SPAM about Viagra and
Alah?

Is'nt there an admin layer to all this? Someone who can delete spam?

It completely ruins the experience. Someone pull their finger out and
do something about it?

Hi Laser,

Yes, it is very anoyying.
I expect 99% of the spam is send via googlegroups.

You can add a filter to your newsreader (or a newsproxy) to filter out
anything from google.

If you are interested in doing so, read more here:
http://www.improve-usenet.org/
(If you are on W$ machine as I am, Newsproxy is a good choice)

I used to have such a filter, but the fact I missed so much legitimate
posting made me remove it. Now I simply live with the religious spam.

Regards,
Erwin Moller

 

[Erwin Moller]

Laser Lips schreef:

What are you on about Dick? I don't use Usenet ...I simply log on to
Google groups.

Dick? I thought his name was Richard.
Or Mr. Cronford maybe.

Anyway: You DO use usenet: You are ON usenet right now.
You are just not aware of that.
Googlegroups is just an (inferior) way of using usenet.

May I advise you to use Thunderbird instead?
It has a good usenet implementation.
http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/thunderbird/

How am I being lazy? In what sense am I being lazy?
I don't get these things through email whatsoever. I log in and view
them.

Well, you don't know the difference between usenet and www/http.
They both are part of internet, but internet is not the same as www.
www is just a part of the internet.
So is usenet (=newsgroups).

Regards,
Erwin Moller

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

[spam] completely ruins the experience.

Spam can both be filtered and complained about in the right place. Headless
people with ridiculous nick names that full-quote spammers and starting
pointless discussions out of their utter cluelessness are much more of a
nuisance here.

Someone pull their finger out and do something about it?

Is that implied criticism of some unknown individual/group for not
doing what you are clearly too lazy to do for yourself? [...]

Don't quote signatures. (For you: Ever.)

What are you on about Dick?

I can imagine Richard not appreciating your becoming this familiar.

I don't use Usenet ...

You do, you just don't know it. Which is the tragedy.

I simply log on to Google groups.

That much is obvious. Ignorance, and particularly ignorance about the used
communications medium, is more common among googlodytes than anywhere else.
ISTM these days Google Groups has pretty much replaced AOL regarding the
percentage of lusers posting through it.

How am I being lazy? In what sense am I being lazy?

Implicitly you blame others for not doing what you don't (want to) do --
doing something against spam. Instead you *feed* spammers and trolls, and
spam by yourself.[1] However, since Usenet simply does not work the way you
want it to, discussing that is pointless.

[1] <<<

I don't get these things through email whatsoever.

E-mail? You should get yourself informed unless you want to make a complete
fool of yourself here.

I log in and view them.

You don't say.


Score adjusted

PointedEars

 

[Dr J R Stockton]

In comp.lang.javascript message <d157152a-e98c-47cd-ade9-8cbb4491602c@u5
7g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Fri, 17 Oct 2008 08:42:22, Laser Lips

What are you on about Dick? I don't use Usenet ...I simply log on to
Google groups.

Google have vampired on to a previously-existing News system, to its
great disadvantage.

Assuming that the display that you get from Google resembled that which
I see : When you search for a group to use, either its name will be
lower-case, with dots in it; or it will not be. All Usenet groups are
in the first category, and all not in the first category are not Usenet
groups. Think carefully about the implications of that; it requires
more than a vague memory of Logic 101.

Google Groups really means those there that are NOT Usenet groups.

Google Groups are local-to-Google, AFAIK. Usenet groups are stored
world-wide.

As shown in Google, Google and Usenet groups are visually distinct. In
particular, Usenet group windows include "This is a Usenet group -
_learn more_". Do that, but remember that it is clearly intended to be
truthful but deceptive. And when you post at Google to a Usenet group,
you are reminded that it is a Usenet group.

To find more about Usenet, see links in sig below.

Usenet is intended to be read and written with local newsreader software
which exchanges articles with near and distant servers to span the
world. Such software can be selective about what it shows; one can
"kill" by author, subject or partial subject, thread, cross-posting,
etc. I can readily arrange to see nothing with the word "Palin" in the
Subject, unless in "Michael Palin" (Wikipedia knows who they are). See
St Luke: Chapter 10, Verse 37, tail.

 

[Gregor Kofler]

Laser Lips meinte:

We did indeed Gregor but it look slike these recent post about 'Jesus'
and 'Alah' have been posted by a human.

But the creation of the Google accounts and feeding them with posts is
done by scripts, I suppose.

Gregor

 

[dhtml]

Is'nt there an admin layer to all this? Someone who can delete spam?

You can report abuse to google groups:
http://groups.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=46453&topic=9246
http://groups-beta.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=81275

Garrett

 

[Doug Miller]

Laser Lips wrote:

E-mail? You should get yourself informed unless you want to make a complete
fool of yourself here.

Too late.

 

[Laser Lips]

Too late.

Well instead of blasting me why didn't you simply explain the
situation. I did'nt know usenet was actually the base for this stuff
and had no reason to think otherwise. I just chip in my 2 cents when
I've got time when the boss is'nt looking or I have 5 mins to kill. I
don't activly spend all day on these things looking for problems I
might know the answer too.

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Well instead of blasting me why didn't you simply explain the
situation.

Judge not, and ye shall not be judged.

Or, if you require a more secular perspective, apply Kant's
"Categorical Imperative" to this situation.

 I did'nt know usenet was actually the base for this stuff
and had no reason to think otherwise.  I just chip in my 2 cents when
I've got time when the boss is'nt looking or I have 5 mins to kill.  I
don't activly spend all day on these things looking for problems I
might know the answer too.

I do hope you see the chief cause of your problems now.


PointedEars

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Laser Lips schreef:

Well, you don't know the difference between usenet and www/http.
They both are part of internet, but internet is not the same as www.
www is just a part of the internet.
So is usenet (=newsgroups).

Just to add a bit more off-topic noise:

The World Wide Web is not really a part of the Internet
(interconnected networks); it is *an application of* the Internet.
The Internet is the hardware, the Web is one kind of software for it;
e-mail, for example, is another.

Usenet (orig.: Unix User Network) is not a part of the Internet as
well. Historically, Usenet always existed parallel to the Internet,
especially the peering between NetNews servers. Nowadays probably
most Usenet traffic goes over the Internet (hands up, please, who uses
UUCP).

Nevertheless, since the ARPANET/Internet (1969) predates Usenet
(1979), Usenet quasi-standards are based on Internet
(quasi-)standards. Which is why your From header constitutes a
violation of protocol, and of Netiquette, BTW.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet>


HTH

PointedEars

 

[Erwin Moller]

dhtml schreef:

You can report abuse to google groups:
http://groups.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=46453&topic=9246
http://groups-beta.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=81275

Which is, by the way, totally pointless.
I stopped doing that. They send you a nice thank-you message, and that's it.

Regards,
Erwin Moller

Garrett

--
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
-- C.A.R. Hoare

 

[Erwin Moller]

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn schreef:
Hi Thomas,

Just to add a bit more off-topic noise:

Maybe off-topic, but it is instructive for Laser Lips.
I have no problems with that: we all have to learn what usenet is, and
how usenet works.

The World Wide Web is not really a part of the Internet
(interconnected networks); it is *an application of* the Internet.
The Internet is the hardware, the Web is one kind of software for it;
e-mail, for example, is another.

OK, You call it an application of the internet, I call it a part of the
Internet. No big deal.
The point is that usenet is something different than www (including
googlegroups).

Usenet (orig.: Unix User Network) is not a part of the Internet as
well. Historically, Usenet always existed parallel to the Internet,
especially the peering between NetNews servers. Nowadays probably
most Usenet traffic goes over the Internet (hands up, please, who uses
UUCP).

Thanks. I totally wasn't aware of that history.

Nevertheless, since the ARPANET/Internet (1969) predates Usenet
(1979), Usenet quasi-standards are based on Internet
(quasi-)standards. Which is why your From header constitutes a
violation of protocol, and of Netiquette, BTW.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet>

I am aware of that.
The reason why I decided to hide my real email is stated in my fake email.
At least I sign my messages with my real name.

By the way: This might be a more appropriate link for nettiquette:
http://www.dtcc.edu/cs/rfc1855.html
(Chapter 3)

HTH

PointedEars

Regards,
Erwin Moller


--
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
-- C.A.R. Hoare

 

[Dr J R Stockton]

In comp.lang.javascript message <[email protected]>
, Tue, 21 Oct 2008 12:29:03, Erwin Moller <Since_humans_read_this_I_am_s
(e-mail address removed)> posted:

I am aware of that.
The reason why I decided to hide my real email is stated in my fake email.
At least I sign my messages with my real name.

By the way: This might be a more appropriate link for nettiquette:
http://www.dtcc.edu/cs/rfc1855.html
(Chapter 3)

<G?><FAQENTRY><G?>There is no obligation to explain one's actions to the
Control Freak. He needs to learn to heed the spirit of FAQ 2.3 Replying
#3, both halves.

 

[Erwin Moller]

Dr J R Stockton schreef:

In comp.lang.javascript message <[email protected]>
, Tue, 21 Oct 2008 12:29:03, Erwin Moller <Since_humans_read_this_I_am_s
(e-mail address removed)> posted:

<G?><FAQENTRY><G?>There is no obligation to explain one's actions to the
Control Freak. He needs to learn to heed the spirit of FAQ 2.3 Replying
#3, both halves.

LOL.
Well, you have a point.
I have this love/hate attitude towards Thomas: Sometimes his postings
are really useful/good, sometimes they are a big laugh.
One of his best laughs (for me) was when he advised to read up on Kant
("Categorical Imperative"). Sure, let's read the works of Kant to get
this JavaScript issue solved. Right Thomas, keep them coming. ;-)

Oh well, this group wouldn't be the same without Thomas.

Regards,
Erwin Moller

--
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
-- C.A.R. Hoare

 

[Mike Duffy]

Erwin Moller

Oh well, this group wouldn't be the same without Thomas.

I agree. At times he seems abrupt, but as far as I can see he is usually
factually correct. There is a vast disparity in the level of knowledge of
people who come here, and I suppose that people looking to discuss the
finer points get tired of questions from those who obviously have not even
looked at the FAQ.

For my "hobby" purposes I do not see the need to read all of the formal
documentation in order to become an expert. So I try to handle the easy
questions from noobs to pay back the experts for the help that I have
received in the past.