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

On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 21:08:59 -0500, Arthur T. <arthur@munged.invalid>
wrote:

>In a couple of months, we may not need to filter out Google posters:
>
>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.

In alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent, on Thu, 14 Dec 2023 21:08:59
-0500, Arthur T. <arthur@munged.invalid> wrote:

>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

It doesn't say anything about Google returning the software and
connections to Dejanews. I think that's the least they could do.

In comp.mobile.android, on Fri, 15 Dec 2023 11:46:59 -0500, micky
<NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:

>In alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent, on Thu, 14 Dec 2023 21:08:59
>-0500, Arthur T. <arthur@munged.invalid> wrote:
>
>>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
>
>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.

micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> on Fri, 15 Dec 2023 12:13:11 -0500
typed in alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent the following:
>In comp.mobile.android, on Fri, 15 Dec 2023 11:46:59 -0500, micky
><NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
>
>>In alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent, on Thu, 14 Dec 2023 21:08:59
>>-0500, Arthur T. <arthur@munged.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>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
>>
>>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)

On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 11:46:59 -0500, micky wrote:

> 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.

In alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent, on Sat, 16 Dec 2023 08:07:08
+1300, Ralph Fox <-rf-nz-@-.invalid> wrote:

>On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 11:46:59 -0500, micky wrote:
>
>> 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.

On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 11:46:59 -0500, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com>
wrote:

>>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...

On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 12:13:11 -0500, micky wrote:
> 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...

Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote

>> 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>

In comp.mobile.android, on Fri, 15 Dec 2023 15:47:16 -0800, Stan Brown
<the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 12:13:11 -0500, micky wrote:
>> 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.

>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 ...

On 16.12.23 00:47, Stan Brown wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 12:13:11 -0500, micky wrote:
>> 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.

> 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)

micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:

> Arthur T. <arthur@munged.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In a couple of months, we may not need to filter out Google posters:
>>
>> 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.

In alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent, on Sat, 16 Dec 2023 01:34:34
-0600, VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:

>micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
>
>> Arthur T. <arthur@munged.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> In a couple of months, we may not need to filter out Google posters:
>>>
>>> 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.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Groups#Deja_News
>
>Once Google acquired DejaNews, DejaNews ceased to exist.

That's sad.

On Sat, 16 Dec 2023 01:34:34 -0600, VanguardLH wrote:
> micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
>
> > [quoted text muted]
> >> 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...

On Sat, 16 Dec 2023 06:31:41 +0100, Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net>
wrote:

>On 16.12.23 00:47, Stan Brown wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 12:13:11 -0500, micky wrote:
>>> 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.
>
>> 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.'"

Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> wrote:
> On 16.12.23 00:47, Stan Brown wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 12:13:11 -0500, micky wrote:
> >> 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!".

> > 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.

On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 12:18:02 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 11:46:59 -0500, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>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.

In comp.mobile.android, on 16 Dec 2023 18:47:49 GMT, Frank Slootweg
<this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

>Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> wrote:
>> On 16.12.23 00:47, Stan Brown wrote:
>> > On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 12:13:11 -0500, micky wrote:
>> >> 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.
>
> 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!".
>
>> > 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 <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
> In comp.mobile.android, on 16 Dec 2023 18:47:49 GMT, Frank Slootweg
> <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
> >Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> wrote:
> >> On 16.12.23 00:47, Stan Brown wrote:
> >> > On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 12:13:11 -0500, micky wrote:
> >> >> 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.]

> > 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!".
> >
> >> > 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.

In alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent, on 17 Dec 2023 18:51:07 GMT,
Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

>micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
>> In comp.mobile.android, on 16 Dec 2023 18:47:49 GMT, Frank Slootweg
>> <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> wrote:
>> >> On 16.12.23 00:47, Stan Brown wrote:
>> >> > On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 12:13:11 -0500, micky wrote:
>> >> >> 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.

>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.

> 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.)
>
>> > 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!".
>> >
>> >> > 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.

On Sun, 17 Dec 2023 16:09:21 -0500, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com>
wrote:

<good point about those attacking conpiracy theories often having a
conspiracy theory of their own -- /if/ I understand the discussion>

>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.'"

micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
> In alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent, on 17 Dec 2023 18:51:07 GMT,
> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
> >micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
> >> In comp.mobile.android, on 16 Dec 2023 18:47:49 GMT, Frank Slootweg
> >> <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> wrote:
> >> >> On 16.12.23 00:47, Stan Brown wrote:
> >> >> > On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 12:13:11 -0500, micky wrote:
> >> >> >> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

> >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.

> > 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.

> **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.)
> >
> >> > 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!".
> >> >
> >> >> > 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.

On 19 Dec 2023 13:11:50 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
wrote:

>micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
<snippo>
>> My point really had nothing to do with Google or Stan or you,
>
> Then don't say "You". Quite simple. really.
<more snippo>
>> 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.'"

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
> On 19 Dec 2023 13:11:50 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
> <snippo>
> >> My point really had nothing to do with Google or Stan or you,
> >
> > Then don't say "You". Quite simple. really.
> <more snippo>
> >> 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. :-)

> 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).

> 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>