Thread: Since Midnight on RFC

On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 15:58:30 -0500, Sqwertz <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Threads started since midnight:
>
>5 Google posters starting threads asking if Google Groups is working
>4 Google Spams
>1 Google poster asking cooking questions unaware that Google is
>broken.
>1 Foodbanter poster asking question easily found elsewhere on the net.
>2 Early morning Andy threads (only two today?)
>
>2 Genuine threads (one of which belongs in the rec.food.drink.coffee
>group)
>
>And of course 1 thread to point out the irony of all this crap.
>
>And one honorable mention: A spam from Google (catgirl563) with the
>subject of "Spam" and one word in the body: "Spam".
>
><sigh>
>
>-sw

This is why most of the action is moving elsewhere...

Christine
--
http://nightstirrings.blogspot.com

Christine Dabney wrote:
>
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 15:58:30 -0500, Sqwertz <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Threads started since midnight:
> >
> >5 Google posters starting threads asking if Google Groups is working
> >4 Google Spams
> >1 Google poster asking cooking questions unaware that Google is
> >broken.
> >1 Foodbanter poster asking question easily found elsewhere on the net.
> >2 Early morning Andy threads (only two today?)
> >
> >2 Genuine threads (one of which belongs in the rec.food.drink.coffee
> >group)
> >
> >And of course 1 thread to point out the irony of all this crap.
> >
> >And one honorable mention: A spam from Google (catgirl563) with the
> >subject of "Spam" and one word in the body: "Spam".
> >
> ><sigh>
> >
> >-sw
>
> This is why most of the action is moving elsewhere...

My newsgroup filters do an excellent job. I block all google originated
posts, so I only see them if someone replies to them and as long as they
aren't feeding trolls, that is only the ones that are legit. I block
anything cross posted to more than two groups which eliminates a huge
percentage of the spam. Those two filters alone get rid of probably 90%
of the crap. A few more filters on specific posters gets rid of another
9%+.

Christine Dabney wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 15:58:30 -0500, Sqwertz
> <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Threads started since midnight:
>>
>> 5 Google posters starting threads asking if Google Groups is
>> working
>> 4 Google Spams
>> 1 Google poster asking cooking questions unaware that Google is
>> broken.
>> 1 Foodbanter poster asking question easily found elsewhere on the
>> net. 2 Early morning Andy threads (only two today?)
>>
>> 2 Genuine threads (one of which belongs in the
>> rec.food.drink.coffee
>> group)
>>
>> And of course 1 thread to point out the irony of all this crap.
>>
>> And one honorable mention: A spam from Google (catgirl563) with
>> the
>> subject of "Spam" and one word in the body: "Spam".
>>
>> <sigh>
>>
>> -sw
>
> This is why most of the action is moving elsewhere...
>
> Christine

And why a lot of the valuable posters have stopped posting here.

Re: 4e0ba146$0$10805$[email protected] com
Pete C. <[email protected]> wrote:
> Christine Dabney wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 15:58:30 -0500, Sqwertz <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Threads started since midnight:
>>>
>>> 5 Google posters starting threads asking if Google Groups is working
>>> 4 Google Spams
>>> 1 Google poster asking cooking questions unaware that Google is
>>> broken.
>>> 1 Foodbanter poster asking question easily found elsewhere on the
>>> net. 2 Early morning Andy threads (only two today?)
>>>
>>> 2 Genuine threads (one of which belongs in the rec.food.drink.coffee
>>> group)
>>>
>>> And of course 1 thread to point out the irony of all this crap.
>>>
>>> And one honorable mention: A spam from Google (catgirl563) with the
>>> subject of "Spam" and one word in the body: "Spam".
>>>
>>> <sigh>
>>>
>>> -sw
>>
>> This is why most of the action is moving elsewhere...
>
> My newsgroup filters do an excellent job. I block all google
> originated posts, so I only see them if someone replies to them and
> as long as they aren't feeding trolls, that is only the ones that are
> legit. I block anything cross posted to more than two groups which
> eliminates a huge percentage of the spam. Those two filters alone get
> rid of probably 90% of the crap. A few more filters on specific
> posters gets rid of another 9%+.

If you have to run that many heavy handed filters your news server isn't
doing a very good job of culling out the crap upstream.

MartyB

Nunya Bidnits wrote:
>
> Re: 4e0ba146$0$10805$[email protected] com
> Pete C. <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Christine Dabney wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 15:58:30 -0500, Sqwertz <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Threads started since midnight:
> >>>
> >>> 5 Google posters starting threads asking if Google Groups is working
> >>> 4 Google Spams
> >>> 1 Google poster asking cooking questions unaware that Google is
> >>> broken.
> >>> 1 Foodbanter poster asking question easily found elsewhere on the
> >>> net. 2 Early morning Andy threads (only two today?)
> >>>
> >>> 2 Genuine threads (one of which belongs in the rec.food.drink.coffee
> >>> group)
> >>>
> >>> And of course 1 thread to point out the irony of all this crap.
> >>>
> >>> And one honorable mention: A spam from Google (catgirl563) with the
> >>> subject of "Spam" and one word in the body: "Spam".
> >>>
> >>> <sigh>
> >>>
> >>> -sw
> >>
> >> This is why most of the action is moving elsewhere...
> >
> > My newsgroup filters do an excellent job. I block all google
> > originated posts, so I only see them if someone replies to them and
> > as long as they aren't feeding trolls, that is only the ones that are
> > legit. I block anything cross posted to more than two groups which
> > eliminates a huge percentage of the spam. Those two filters alone get
> > rid of probably 90% of the crap. A few more filters on specific
> > posters gets rid of another 9%+.
>
> If you have to run that many heavy handed filters your news server isn't
> doing a very good job of culling out the crap upstream.
>
> MartyB

My filtering standards are tighter than theirs, and I can accomplish
what I want with only a few filters.

Re: 4e0bcc66$0$10793$[email protected] com
Pete C. <[email protected]> wrote:
> Nunya Bidnits wrote:
>>
>> Re: 4e0ba146$0$10805$[email protected] com
>> Pete C. <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Christine Dabney wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 15:58:30 -0500, Sqwertz
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Threads started since midnight:
>>>>>
>>>>> 5 Google posters starting threads asking if Google Groups is
>>>>> working 4 Google Spams
>>>>> 1 Google poster asking cooking questions unaware that Google is
>>>>> broken.
>>>>> 1 Foodbanter poster asking question easily found elsewhere on the
>>>>> net. 2 Early morning Andy threads (only two today?)
>>>>>
>>>>> 2 Genuine threads (one of which belongs in the
>>>>> rec.food.drink.coffee group)
>>>>>
>>>>> And of course 1 thread to point out the irony of all this crap.
>>>>>
>>>>> And one honorable mention: A spam from Google (catgirl563) with
>>>>> the subject of "Spam" and one word in the body: "Spam".
>>>>>
>>>>> <sigh>
>>>>>
>>>>> -sw
>>>>
>>>> This is why most of the action is moving elsewhere...
>>>
>>> My newsgroup filters do an excellent job. I block all google
>>> originated posts, so I only see them if someone replies to them and
>>> as long as they aren't feeding trolls, that is only the ones that
>>> are legit. I block anything cross posted to more than two groups
>>> which eliminates a huge percentage of the spam. Those two filters
>>> alone get rid of probably 90% of the crap. A few more filters on
>>> specific posters gets rid of another 9%+.
>>
>> If you have to run that many heavy handed filters your news server
>> isn't doing a very good job of culling out the crap upstream.
>>
>> MartyB
>
> My filtering standards are tighter than theirs,

Necessarily so, apparently. In contrast to your pay server,
Eternal-September manages to filter the vast majority of it out upstream,
for free. I used to have a large subject line blacklist. As it turns out
it's not necessary. The very few spam messages that get through are quite
obvious and I just delete them without opening.

MartyB

"Christine Dabney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 15:58:30 -0500, Sqwertz <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>Threads started since midnight:
>>
>>5 Google posters starting threads asking if Google Groups is working
>>4 Google Spams
>>1 Google poster asking cooking questions unaware that Google is
>>broken.
>>1 Foodbanter poster asking question easily found elsewhere on the net.
>>2 Early morning Andy threads (only two today?)
>>
>>2 Genuine threads (one of which belongs in the rec.food.drink.coffee
>>group)
>>
>>And of course 1 thread to point out the irony of all this crap.
>>
>>And one honorable mention: A spam from Google (catgirl563) with the
>>subject of "Spam" and one word in the body: "Spam".
>>
>><sigh>
>>
>>-sw
>
> This is why most of the action is moving elsewhere...
>
> Christine
> --
> http://nightstirrings.blogspot.com


Pity, that. Sorry, but I won't be moving to that other "social network"
anytime soon.

Jill

Jill wrote:

>> This is why most of the action is moving elsewhere...
>
> Pity, that. Sorry, but I won't be moving to that other "social network"
> anytime soon.

You'd miss Larry's attentions?

Bob

jmcquown wrote:
>
> "Christine Dabney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]..
>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 15:58:30 -0500, Sqwertz <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Threads started since midnight:
>>>
>>> 5 Google posters starting threads asking if Google Groups is working
>>> 4 Google Spams
>>> 1 Google poster asking cooking questions unaware that Google is
>>> broken.
>>> 1 Foodbanter poster asking question easily found elsewhere on the net.
>>> 2 Early morning Andy threads (only two today?)
>>>
>>> 2 Genuine threads (one of which belongs in the rec.food.drink.coffee
>>> group)
>>>
>>> And of course 1 thread to point out the irony of all this crap.
>>>
>>> And one honorable mention: A spam from Google (catgirl563) with the
>>> subject of "Spam" and one word in the body: "Spam".
>>>
>>> <sigh>
>>>
>>> -sw
>>
>> This is why most of the action is moving elsewhere...
>>
>> Christine
>> --
>> http://nightstirrings.blogspot.com
>
>
> Pity, that. Sorry, but I won't be moving to that other "social network"
> anytime soon.
>
> Jill

Nor will I. I don't like the way (in general) these things are
being pushed down our gullets.

--
Jean B.

On 7/8/2011 9:11 AM, Jean B. wrote:
>>
>> Pity, that. Sorry, but I won't be moving to that other "social
>> network" anytime soon.
>>
>> Jill
>
> Nor will I. I don't like the way (in general) these things are being
> pushed down our gullets.


I guess I am puzzled by this. Participation in any online community ,
newsgroup or network site is voluntary and optional, no?

How exactly are these things being "pushed down your gullet"? How are
you being forced to participate?

It is the internet. Use the parts you like and don't use the parts you
don't like.

It is that simple.

George L

On Fri, 8 Jul 2011 01:59:27 -0400, "jmcquown" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
> "Christine Dabney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]..
> > On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 15:58:30 -0500, Sqwertz <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>Threads started since midnight:
> >>
> >>5 Google posters starting threads asking if Google Groups is working
> >>4 Google Spams
> >>1 Google poster asking cooking questions unaware that Google is
> >>broken.
> >>1 Foodbanter poster asking question easily found elsewhere on the net.
> >>2 Early morning Andy threads (only two today?)
> >>
> >>2 Genuine threads (one of which belongs in the rec.food.drink.coffee
> >>group)
> >>
> >>And of course 1 thread to point out the irony of all this crap.
> >>
> >>And one honorable mention: A spam from Google (catgirl563) with the
> >>subject of "Spam" and one word in the body: "Spam".
> >>
> >><sigh>
> >>
> >>-sw
> >
> > This is why most of the action is moving elsewhere...
> >
>
>
> Pity, that. Sorry, but I won't be moving to that other "social network"
> anytime soon.
>
FB has an rfc page and some people who are current posters and others
who are ex-posters participate there. It's moderated, so people mind
their manners. <shrug> If that's your thing and you already have a
FB account, it might be for you - but AFAIC it's not a reason to rush
out and join FB. It's a side benefit, not the main event.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

ok that makes three reasons now, the other two,
-i am too lazy. its too much work.
-risk vs benifit isn't there for me.

and now, i won't be bullied into it, thanks for that,

Lee
"Jean B." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
> jmcquown wrote:
>>
>> "Christine Dabney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]..
>>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 15:58:30 -0500, Sqwertz <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Threads started since midnight:
>>>>
>>>> 5 Google posters starting threads asking if Google Groups is working
>>>> 4 Google Spams
>>>> 1 Google poster asking cooking questions unaware that Google is
>>>> broken.
>>>> 1 Foodbanter poster asking question easily found elsewhere on the net.
>>>> 2 Early morning Andy threads (only two today?)
>>>>
>>>> 2 Genuine threads (one of which belongs in the rec.food.drink.coffee
>>>> group)
>>>>
>>>> And of course 1 thread to point out the irony of all this crap.
>>>>
>>>> And one honorable mention: A spam from Google (catgirl563) with the
>>>> subject of "Spam" and one word in the body: "Spam".
>>>>
>>>> <sigh>
>>>>
>>>> -sw
>>>
>>> This is why most of the action is moving elsewhere...
>>>
>>> Christine
>>> --
>>> http://nightstirrings.blogspot.com
>>
>>
>> Pity, that. Sorry, but I won't be moving to that other "social network"
>> anytime soon.
>>
>> Jill
>
> Nor will I. I don't like the way (in general) these things are being
> pushed down our gullets.
>
> --
> Jean B.

George Leppla wrote:
> On 7/8/2011 9:11 AM, Jean B. wrote:
>>>
>>> Pity, that. Sorry, but I won't be moving to that other "social
>>> network" anytime soon.
>>>
>>> Jill
>>
>> Nor will I. I don't like the way (in general) these things are being
>> pushed down our gullets.
>
>
> I guess I am puzzled by this. Participation in any online community ,
> newsgroup or network site is voluntary and optional, no?
>
> How exactly are these things being "pushed down your gullet"? How are
> you being forced to participate?
>
> It is the internet. Use the parts you like and don't use the parts you
> don't like.
>
> It is that simple.
>
> George L

More and more entities expect you to be on facebook or twitter if
you want to know what they are up to. For example, a large, old
used-book store in Boston is doing that rather than putting
updates on it site. I would LIKE to know when they get in a lot
of old cookbooks, and I don't know why I should join facebook or
twitter to find that out. '


And interestingly, just today, a talk show host said that his boss
had told him to twit. It sounded like he didn't want to. And I
see bank billboards saying the bank wants you to friend them.
This is how things are going. It is the Zuckerberg (et al.)
vision. of the future.

--
Jean B.

On 7/8/2011 5:05 PM, Jean B. wrote:
>
> More and more entities expect you to be on facebook or twitter if you
> want to know what they are up to. For example, a large, old used-book
> store in Boston is doing that rather than putting updates on it site. I
> would LIKE to know when they get in a lot of old cookbooks, and I don't
> know why I should join facebook or twitter to find that out. '

Well, the owner of the store has decided to run his business a certain
way. If that doesn't suit your needs, you can take your business
elsewhere... and let him know why.

Things change... methods of communication evolve. You don't have to
evolve along with them, but if you don't, don't be surprised if you get
left behind.

> And interestingly, just today, a talk show host said that his boss had
> told him to twit. It sounded like he didn't want to.

He will if he wants to keep his job.

>And I see bank
> billboards saying the bank wants you to friend them. This is how things
> are going. It is the Zuckerberg (et al.) vision. of the future.

Remember Pen Pals? Party phone lines? Fax machines? Cameras with film
and "flash bulbs"?

My point is that ***YOU*** don't have to embrace new technologies or
forms of communication... but when you don't, you stand the chance of
being left in the dust.

Oh... one last point. The machine you are using to post your messages
and read the replies didn't even exist as a consumer product 40 years
ago. Usenet didn't really become popular until the early 90's... about
20 years ago. Yet here you are... computer savvy, probably have a cell
phone, etc.

You've come a long way, Baby. Don't stop evolving now! The journey is
far from over.

George L

On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 18:05:30 -0400, "Jean B." <[email protected]> wrote:

> More and more entities expect you to be on facebook or twitter if
> you want to know what they are up to. For example, a large, old
> used-book store in Boston is doing that rather than putting
> updates on it site. I would LIKE to know when they get in a lot
> of old cookbooks, and I don't know why I should join facebook or
> twitter to find that out. '
>
It's probably easier for the owner/clerk to post it on Facebook or put
out a tweet than it is for him/her to fiddle with HTML updating a
website. They should send out email alerts to customers like you.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

On Fri, 8 Jul 2011 01:59:27 -0400, jmcquown wrote:

> "Christine Dabney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]..
>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 15:58:30 -0500, Sqwertz <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Threads started since midnight:
>>>
>>>5 Google posters starting threads asking if Google Groups is working
>>>4 Google Spams
>>>1 Google poster asking cooking questions unaware that Google is
>>>broken.
>>>1 Foodbanter poster asking question easily found elsewhere on the net.
>>>2 Early morning Andy threads (only two today?)
>>>
>>>2 Genuine threads (one of which belongs in the rec.food.drink.coffee
>>>group)
>>>
>>>And of course 1 thread to point out the irony of all this crap.
>>>
>>>And one honorable mention: A spam from Google (catgirl563) with the
>>>subject of "Spam" and one word in the body: "Spam".
>>>
>>><sigh>
>>>
>>>-sw
>>
>> This is why most of the action is moving elsewhere...
>>
>> Christine
>> --
>> http://nightstirrings.blogspot.com
>
> Pity, that. Sorry, but I won't be moving to that other "social network"
> anytime soon.

Facebook RFC only has about 80 members and has been holding steady.
And most of them are lurkers, just like on Usenet. So far, the
members small handful are former RFC members who left Usenet RFC
because of what it has become. And they didn't leave Usenet because
of Google. They left because of the RFC *regulars* and the various
ways they found to avoid talking about everything *except* cooking and
the constant bickering. I don't think anybody "switched from Usenet
to Faceebook. And the conversation is a little too tame and
superficial for me. But that seems to be standard facebook mentality.

sw

On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 18:05:30 -0400, Jean B. wrote:

> More and more entities expect you to be on facebook or twitter if
> you want to know what they are up to. For example, a large, old
> used-book store in Boston is doing that rather than putting
> updates on it site. I would LIKE to know when they get in a lot
> of old cookbooks, and I don't know why I should join facebook or
> twitter to find that out. '

So many of these roving Roach Coaches that serve "Weird Cuisine" (like
kimchi tacos) Twitter where they are going for the day (often an hour
before lunch). Austin has at least 80 of them serving all sorts of
specialty foods.

But if you don't twitter then you don't know where they are. Which is
fine with me because they're run and patronized by twits. I prefer
non-Twitter food.

-sw

Sqwertz wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 18:05:30 -0400, Jean B. wrote:
>
>> More and more entities expect you to be on facebook or twitter if
>> you want to know what they are up to. For example, a large, old
>> used-book store in Boston is doing that rather than putting
>> updates on it site. I would LIKE to know when they get in a lot
>> of old cookbooks, and I don't know why I should join facebook or
>> twitter to find that out. '
>
> So many of these roving Roach Coaches that serve "Weird Cuisine" (like
> kimchi tacos) Twitter where they are going for the day (often an hour
> before lunch). Austin has at least 80 of them serving all sorts of
> specialty foods.
>
> But if you don't twitter then you don't know where they are. Which is
> fine with me because they're run and patronized by twits. I prefer
> non-Twitter food.
>
> -sw

Heh! I have quite enough eateries to try without twitter.
Serendipity is good too.

--
Jean B.