Decline and changes to the standards

[*Anarcissie*]

It seems to me that Usenet has declined to the point where
one might want to consider technological fixes like changes
to the standards. Or perhaps the situation is hopeless.

[Alexander Bartolich]

["Followup-To:" header set to news.groups.]

Post by *Anarcissie*
It seems to me that Usenet has declined to the point where
one might want to consider technological fixes like changes
to the standards. Or perhaps the situation is hopeless.

Oh, the technological is all there. You can transport HTML and binaries
in posts. Usenet's competitive disadvantage to Web sites is the lack of
central authority. Which means there is no way to keep sociopathic
users out.

[Alexander Bartolich]

["Followup-To:" header set to news.groups.]

Post by *Anarcissie*
It seems to me that Usenet has declined to the point where
one might want to consider technological fixes like changes
to the standards. Or perhaps the situation is hopeless.

Oh, the technology is all there. You can transport HTML and binaries
in posts. Usenet's competitive disadvantage to Web sites is the lack of
central authority. Which means there is no way to keep sociopathic
users out.

[A B]

I've only been using Usenet since February 2009, so I expect some people
would think I've no business to be suggesting anything; but what I'd
appreciate, other newbies might well appreciate too. And however annoying
you might find them in practice, if Usenet is to survive there have got to
be some newbies. So here are a few random suggestions to add to the
mixture. I'm still not up to speed with the finer details of how Usenet
works, so some of these may be impossible or plain wrong. If so I
apologise.

1) Picking up on something Dave Sill said, what about a group dedicated to
reviews of other Usenet groups? There are so many groups on similar topics,
especially in the unweedable alt.* and free.* hierarchies. It'd be very
useful for newbies, and also for regular users looking for groups on a topic
they haven't tried before. People could post information on which groups
are empty, which are spam-infested and which are plagued by flame wars -
even who, in their opinion, needs to be killfiled to make a group readily
usable. (Obviously it'd need a disclaimer saying "all reviews are to be
taken with a pinch of salt".) It'd probably have to be moderated to
on-topic posts only, otherwise it'd defeat its own purpose. But it would
work even if turnover was a day or more, so perhaps getting a moderator
wouldn't be as hard as it usually seems to be. This would also work as a
webpage, which would be better for attracting newcomers to Usenet who might
not find the newsgroup. Would it even be possible to link the two
together - so that postings sent to the newsgroup were automatically
displayed on the webpage and vice versa?

2) Would it be possible to invent a type of newsgroup that moderators could
remove postings from AFTER they appeared? It seems to me that that might
help a bit with the difficulties of finding moderators. Postings could
appear instantly without a mod having to be always on duty. Maybe if you
had a "master copy" on one server, and other servers were to synch only to
that? It's just an idea - I don't understand how Usenet moderation is done
at all. Incidentally, is there anywhere I can find that out?

3) Robomoderation isn't half bad really, if nothing else is available.
Speaking for myself, I'd say a robomoderator that catches most of the spam
is much better than nothing. And I wouldn't have thought it would be that
much more difficult to have it block certain posters who'd been suspended by
the human mod for reasons previously defined in the group charter - say,
never posting on topic, or constantly starting fights if it's not a group
where that's OK. Either way, posts could appear immediately and the mod
would only have to drop in occasionally to adjust the robot.

4) Can anything at all be done about deserted alt.* and free.* groups, or
are they there until someone mananges to resurrect them or Usenet finally
collapses? There are just so many duplicate ones.

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

Post by A B
1) Picking up on something Dave Sill said, what about a group dedicated to
reviews of other Usenet groups? There are so many groups on similar topics,
especially in the unweedable alt.* and free.* hierarchies. It'd be very
useful for newbies, and also for regular users looking for groups on a topic
they haven't tried before. People could post information on which groups
are empty, which are spam-infested and which are plagued by flame wars -
even who, in their opinion, needs to be killfiled to make a group readily
usable.

That's not a group that I would find interesting to read or
for which I would write.

There are 2300-plus big-8 groups. A survey of how those are
doing might be manageable. In a sense, Alexander Bartolich
is working on such a survey--striving to close the dead
groups so that the live groups stand out a little more
clearly.

Sifting the 40,000 to 60,000 alt groups might be done
if you have a news server and could filter the spool so
as to provide a list of the most active groups with some
machine-aided assessment of the quality of the content
(using the Breitbart index and anti-spam stuff).

Post by A B
... It'd probably have to be moderated to
on-topic posts only, otherwise it'd defeat its own purpose. But it would
work even if turnover was a day or more, so perhaps getting a moderator
wouldn't be as hard as it usually seems to be.

Moderation is costs time and money:

http://www.big-8.org/wiki/Moderated_Newsgroups

Post by A B
This would also work as a
webpage, which would be better for attracting newcomers to Usenet who might
not find the newsgroup. Would it even be possible to link the two
together - so that postings sent to the newsgroup were automatically
displayed on the webpage and vice versa?

Yes, such news-to-web gateways exist. Some are listed at the bottom of
this page:

http://www.big-8.org/wiki/Gateways

Post by A B
2) Would it be possible to invent a type of newsgroup that moderators could
remove postings from AFTER they appeared?

Yes, it would be possible.

All you would have to do is rewrite the software used by news
servers all around the world and persuade the owners and operators
of the servers to buy into your new system.

Cancellation of messages was one of the key pieces of Usenet II:

http://www.usenet2.org/

You might want to work with them as you start designing the new system.

Post by A B
... It's just an idea - I don't understand how Usenet moderation is done
at all. Incidentally, is there anywhere I can find that out?

http://www.big-8.org/wiki/Moderated_Newsgroups

Post by A B
3) Robomoderation isn't half bad really, if nothing else is available.
Speaking for myself, I'd say a robomoderator that catches most of the spam
is much better than nothing. And I wouldn't have thought it would be that
much more difficult to have it block certain posters who'd been suspended by
the human mod for reasons previously defined in the group charter - say,
never posting on topic, or constantly starting fights if it's not a group
where that's OK. Either way, posts could appear immediately and the mod
would only have to drop in occasionally to adjust the robot.

That seems to be true, more or less.

Post by A B
4) Can anything at all be done about deserted alt.* and free.* groups, or
are they there until someone mananges to resurrect them or Usenet finally
collapses? There are just so many duplicate ones.

Alt was designed as an alternative to the big-7 (which later became the
big-8). No one is in charge of alt. It is, by design, an unmanaged
hierarchy:

http://www.big-8.org/wiki/Alt

Here is a very brief history of {the} [Usenet|USENET]:

http://www.big-8.org/wiki/Timeline

And a short history of how management developed within the big-8:

http://www.big-8.org/wiki/How_the_Management_of_the_Big-8_Developed

Marty

[Alexander Bartolich]

["Followup-To:" header set to news.groups.]

Post by Martin X. Moleski, SJ
[...]

Post by A B
2) Would it be possible to invent a type of newsgroup that moderators could
remove postings from AFTER they appeared?

Yes, it would be possible.
All you would have to do is rewrite the software used by news
servers all around the world and persuade the owners and operators
of the servers to buy into your new system.

The required software has actually been available for more than a
decade. The concept is known as NoCeM and implemented as an add-on,
i.e. no rewrite of the core server software required.

The problem in "persuading" site operators is that:
a) Users of binary groups don't care about signal to noise ratio.
b) Users of text-only groups violently defend their right to start
flame wars. Up to the day that they snap and leave Usenet alto-
gether.

Ciao

Alexander.

[Aratzio]

On Mon, 4 Oct 2010 23:10:19 +0100, in the land of news.groups, "A B"

Post by A B
People could post information on which groups
are empty, which are spam-infested and which are plagued by flame wars -
even who, in their opinion, needs to be killfiled to make a group readily
usable.

Really we need a list of the horrible fuckheads that infest
newsgroups! We can get Tim Skirvin to host a web site and call it
killfile.org and list these miscreants on there. We could call it a
dungeon!

People like Adam Kerman and his *ilk* could be placed in a dungeon
never to be heard from again.

No one could possibly have any problem with that, right? Everyone
would take it so seriously and never ever make fun of such arrogant
fuckwittery, right?

In the end the forces of good and netnannyism will prevail over those
evil fuckheads incapable of recognizing that the net nannys know what
is best for everyone.

[§ñühw¤£f]

Post by Aratzio
On Mon, 4 Oct 2010 23:10:19 +0100, in the land of news.groups, "A B"

Post by A B
People could post information on which groups
are empty, which are spam-infested and which are plagued by flame wars -
even who, in their opinion, needs to be killfiled to make a group readily
usable.

Really we need a list of the horrible fuckheads that infest
newsgroups! We can get Tim Skirvin to host a web site and call it
killfile.org and list these miscreants on there. We could call it a
dungeon!
People like Adam Kerman and his *ilk* could be placed in a dungeon
never to be heard from again.
No one could possibly have any problem with that, right? Everyone
would take it so seriously and never ever make fun of such arrogant
fuckwittery, right?
In the end the forces of good and netnannyism will prevail over those
evil fuckheads incapable of recognizing that the net nannys know what
is best for everyone.

Smart people just realize theres nothing left worth reading on usenet
and leave.

[Aratzio]

On Tue, 05 Oct 2010 09:22:07 -0600, in the land of news.groups,

Post by §ñühw¤£f

Post by Aratzio
On Mon, 4 Oct 2010 23:10:19 +0100, in the land of news.groups, "A B"

Post by A B
People could post information on which groups
are empty, which are spam-infested and which are plagued by flame wars -
even who, in their opinion, needs to be killfiled to make a group readily
usable.

Really we need a list of the horrible fuckheads that infest
newsgroups! We can get Tim Skirvin to host a web site and call it
killfile.org and list these miscreants on there. We could call it a
dungeon!
People like Adam Kerman and his *ilk* could be placed in a dungeon
never to be heard from again.
No one could possibly have any problem with that, right? Everyone
would take it so seriously and never ever make fun of such arrogant
fuckwittery, right?
In the end the forces of good and netnannyism will prevail over those
evil fuckheads incapable of recognizing that the net nannys know what
is best for everyone.

Smart people just realize theres nothing left worth reading on usenet
and leave.

Har Har ewe jest cawled yerself stoopud.

[§ñühw¤£f]

Post by Aratzio
On Tue, 05 Oct 2010 09:22:07 -0600, in the land of news.groups,

Post by §ñühw¤£f

Post by Aratzio
On Mon, 4 Oct 2010 23:10:19 +0100, in the land of news.groups, "A B"

Post by A B
People could post information on which groups
are empty, which are spam-infested and which are plagued by flame wars -
even who, in their opinion, needs to be killfiled to make a group readily
usable.

Really we need a list of the horrible fuckheads that infest
newsgroups! We can get Tim Skirvin to host a web site and call it
killfile.org and list these miscreants on there. We could call it a
dungeon!
People like Adam Kerman and his *ilk* could be placed in a dungeon
never to be heard from again.
No one could possibly have any problem with that, right? Everyone
would take it so seriously and never ever make fun of such arrogant
fuckwittery, right?
In the end the forces of good and netnannyism will prevail over those
evil fuckheads incapable of recognizing that the net nannys know what
is best for everyone.

Smart people just realize theres nothing left worth reading on usenet
and leave.

Har Har ewe jest cawled yerself stoopud.

I did indeed.

I suggest we start a new alt group: alt.reasonable.discourse

<nods>

[Aratzio]

On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 09:21:28 -0600, in the land of news.groups,

Post by §ñühw¤£f

Post by Aratzio
On Tue, 05 Oct 2010 09:22:07 -0600, in the land of news.groups,

Post by §ñühw¤£f

Post by Aratzio
On Mon, 4 Oct 2010 23:10:19 +0100, in the land of news.groups, "A B"

Post by A B
People could post information on which groups
are empty, which are spam-infested and which are plagued by flame wars -
even who, in their opinion, needs to be killfiled to make a group readily
usable.

Really we need a list of the horrible fuckheads that infest
newsgroups! We can get Tim Skirvin to host a web site and call it
killfile.org and list these miscreants on there. We could call it a
dungeon!
People like Adam Kerman and his *ilk* could be placed in a dungeon
never to be heard from again.
No one could possibly have any problem with that, right? Everyone
would take it so seriously and never ever make fun of such arrogant
fuckwittery, right?
In the end the forces of good and netnannyism will prevail over those
evil fuckheads incapable of recognizing that the net nannys know what
is best for everyone.

Smart people just realize theres nothing left worth reading on usenet
and leave.

Har Har ewe jest cawled yerself stoopud.

I did indeed.
I suggest we start a new alt group: alt.reasonable.discourse
<nods>

Fuck you.

[§ñühw¤£f]

Post by Aratzio
On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 09:21:28 -0600, in the land of news.groups,

Post by §ñühw¤£f

Post by Aratzio
On Tue, 05 Oct 2010 09:22:07 -0600, in the land of news.groups,

Post by §ñühw¤£f

Post by Aratzio
On Mon, 4 Oct 2010 23:10:19 +0100, in the land of news.groups, "A B"

Post by A B
People could post information on which groups
are empty, which are spam-infested and which are plagued by flame wars -
even who, in their opinion, needs to be killfiled to make a group readily
usable.

Really we need a list of the horrible fuckheads that infest
newsgroups! We can get Tim Skirvin to host a web site and call it
killfile.org and list these miscreants on there. We could call it a
dungeon!
People like Adam Kerman and his *ilk* could be placed in a dungeon
never to be heard from again.
No one could possibly have any problem with that, right? Everyone
would take it so seriously and never ever make fun of such arrogant
fuckwittery, right?
In the end the forces of good and netnannyism will prevail over those
evil fuckheads incapable of recognizing that the net nannys know what
is best for everyone.

Smart people just realize theres nothing left worth reading on usenet
and leave.

Har Har ewe jest cawled yerself stoopud.

I did indeed.
I suggest we start a new alt group: alt.reasonable.discourse
<nods>

Fuck you.

Case In Point.

[Aratzio]

On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 09:29:29 -0600, in the land of news.groups,

Post by §ñühw¤£f

Post by Aratzio
On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 09:21:28 -0600, in the land of news.groups,

Post by §ñühw¤£f

Post by Aratzio
On Tue, 05 Oct 2010 09:22:07 -0600, in the land of news.groups,

Post by §ñühw¤£f

Post by Aratzio
On Mon, 4 Oct 2010 23:10:19 +0100, in the land of news.groups, "A B"

Post by A B
People could post information on which groups
are empty, which are spam-infested and which are plagued by flame wars -
even who, in their opinion, needs to be killfiled to make a group readily
usable.

Really we need a list of the horrible fuckheads that infest
newsgroups! We can get Tim Skirvin to host a web site and call it
killfile.org and list these miscreants on there. We could call it a
dungeon!
People like Adam Kerman and his *ilk* could be placed in a dungeon
never to be heard from again.
No one could possibly have any problem with that, right? Everyone
would take it so seriously and never ever make fun of such arrogant
fuckwittery, right?
In the end the forces of good and netnannyism will prevail over those
evil fuckheads incapable of recognizing that the net nannys know what
is best for everyone.

Smart people just realize theres nothing left worth reading on usenet
and leave.

Har Har ewe jest cawled yerself stoopud.

I did indeed.
I suggest we start a new alt group: alt.reasonable.discourse
<nods>

Fuck you.

Case In Point.

<twirls>

[Kevin Provance]

"Aratzio" <***@sneakemail.com> wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...
:
: <twirls>

Finally find a use for that tutu, did you?

[§ñühw¤£f]

Post by Kevin Provance
: <twirls>
Finally find a use for that tutu, did you?

Sure, yer mom couldnt fit you into it any more.

[Kevin Provance]

"���hw��f" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:i8neuq$baa$***@news.eternal-september.org...
:
: Sure, yer mom couldnt fit you into it any more.

Sorry, I didn't realize you and Berry were arguing over the same dress.
Girls of a feather.

[Aratzio]

On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 09:56:03 -0600, in the land of news.groups,

Post by §ñühw¤£f

Post by Kevin Provance
: <twirls>
Finally find a use for that tutu, did you?

Sure, yer mom couldnt fit you into it any more.

WooHoo the classic Mommy Ikyabwai!!!!

[§ñühw¤£f]

Post by Aratzio
On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 09:56:03 -0600, in the land of news.groups,

Post by §ñühw¤£f

Post by Kevin Provance
: <twirls>
Finally find a use for that tutu, did you?

Sure, yer mom couldnt fit you into it any more.

WooHoo the classic Mommy Ikyabwai!!!!

Bekawz U R gay!!1111111111!!!!!!!

[Aratzio]

On Sat, 09 Oct 2010 08:48:25 -0600, in the land of news.groups,

Post by §ñühw¤£f

Post by Aratzio
On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 09:56:03 -0600, in the land of news.groups,

Post by §ñühw¤£f

Post by Kevin Provance
: <twirls>
Finally find a use for that tutu, did you?

Sure, yer mom couldnt fit you into it any more.

WooHoo the classic Mommy Ikyabwai!!!!

Bekawz U R gay!!1111111111!!!!!!!

You must be drunk or on drugs, because your mom is the gay one,
cheesedick.

[§ñühw¤£f]

Post by Aratzio
On Sat, 09 Oct 2010 08:48:25 -0600, in the land of news.groups,

Post by §ñühw¤£f

Post by Aratzio
On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 09:56:03 -0600, in the land of news.groups,

Post by §ñühw¤£f

Post by Kevin Provance
: <twirls>
Finally find a use for that tutu, did you?

Sure, yer mom couldnt fit you into it any more.

WooHoo the classic Mommy Ikyabwai!!!!

Bekawz U R gay!!1111111111!!!!!!!

You must be drunk or on drugs, because your mom is the gay one,
cheesedick.

I WANT!

[Aratzio]

On Sun, 10 Oct 2010 09:31:42 -0600, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,

Post by §ñühw¤£f

Post by Aratzio
On Sat, 09 Oct 2010 08:48:25 -0600, in the land of news.groups,

Post by §ñühw¤£f

Post by Aratzio
On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 09:56:03 -0600, in the land of news.groups,

Post by §ñühw¤£f

Post by Kevin Provance
: <twirls>
Finally find a use for that tutu, did you?

Sure, yer mom couldnt fit you into it any more.

WooHoo the classic Mommy Ikyabwai!!!!

Bekawz U R gay!!1111111111!!!!!!!

You must be drunk or on drugs, because your mom is the gay one,
cheesedick.

I WANT!

Booze, drugs or Mom?

Mom is out, she is gay.

[§ñühw¤£f]

Post by Aratzio
On Sun, 10 Oct 2010 09:31:42 -0600, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,

Post by §ñühw¤£f

Post by Aratzio
On Sat, 09 Oct 2010 08:48:25 -0600, in the land of news.groups,

Post by §ñühw¤£f

Post by Aratzio
On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 09:56:03 -0600, in the land of news.groups,

Post by §ñühw¤£f

Post by Kevin Provance
: <twirls>
Finally find a use for that tutu, did you?

Sure, yer mom couldnt fit you into it any more.

WooHoo the classic Mommy Ikyabwai!!!!

Bekawz U R gay!!1111111111!!!!!!!

You must be drunk or on drugs, because your mom is the gay one,
cheesedick.

I WANT!

Booze, drugs or Mom?
Mom is out, she is gay.

EVERY EXPERIENCE!

ALL AT ONCE!

[Aratzio]

On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 21:08:20 -0400, in the land of news.groups, "Kevin

Post by Kevin Provance
: <twirls>
Finally find a use for that tutu, did you?

Yes, he is that easy.

[Kevin Provance]

"Aratzio" <***@sneakemail.com> wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...
: On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 21:08:20 -0400, in the land of news.groups, "Kevin
: Provance" <***@p.c> got double secret probation for writing:
:
: >
: >"Aratzio" <***@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
: >news:***@4ax.com...
: >:
: >: <twirls>
: >
: >Finally find a use for that tutu, did you?
:
: Yes, he is that easy.

Good for you Berry.

[Aratzio]

On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 01:16:39 -0400, in the land of news.groups, "Kevin

Post by Kevin Provance
: On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 21:08:20 -0400, in the land of news.groups, "Kevin
: >
: >: <twirls>
: >
: >Finally find a use for that tutu, did you?
: Yes, he is that easy.
Good for you Berry.

That's it? Really>? that was the best you could do? No gay lames? N
drug lames? Just capitulation.

[Kevin Provance]

"Aratzio" <***@sneakemail.com> wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...
:
: That's it? Really>? that was the best you could do? No gay lames? N
: drug lames? Just capitulation.

You're not worth the time or effort.

[Aratzio]

On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 19:44:51 -0400, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,

Post by Kevin Provance
: That's it? Really>? that was the best you could do? No gay lames? N
: drug lames? Just capitulation.
You're not worth the time or effort.

Now jump up and down and scream about how little it all matters to you
and how you have always hated me, ever since I broke your Chatty Cathy
doll.

[Kevin Provance]

"Aratzio" <***@sneakemail.com> wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...
:
: Now jump up and down and scream about how little it all matters to you
: and how you have always hated me, ever since I broke your Chatty Cathy
: doll.

Again, you clearly think I am someone who has it in for you, mistaking me
for someone else. Read this very carefully Berry: I don't care for you
because all you do is flame other people - especially those you do not know,
regardless of their intelligence level - for no reason at all, other than to
fulfill some sick desire to give yourself the appearance that you wield some
kind of power or are an important person. All you have done through this
discourse is prove to me that none of that is true, and that in the end,
you're just a butthurt child who lashes out at others, probably because
mommy didn't buy you that pony you wanted so badly as a child. Again, I
pity you.

So, reply with whatever temper tantrum you need to. I am done with this
particular thread since you have nothing useful or interesting to
contribute.

[Aratzio]

On Sun, 10 Oct 2010 10:03:45 -0400, in the land of news.groups, "Kevin

Post by Kevin Provance
: Now jump up and down and scream about how little it all matters to you
: and how you have always hated me, ever since I broke your Chatty Cathy
: doll.
Again, you clearly think I am someone who has it in for you, mistaking me
for someone else.

If irony had calories then that would be the triple whopper with
cheese of irony.

Post by Kevin Provance
ead this very carefully Berry: I don't care for you
because all you do is flame other people - especially those you do not know,
regardless of their intelligence level - for no reason at all, other than to
fulfill some sick desire to give yourself the appearance that you wield some
kind of power or are an important person.

That or I'm just a fuckhead who rather enjoys watching powerless
little pissants froth and foam about their complete and utter failure
to be taken seriously. Their need to be taken seriously evident in
their frothing and foaming.

Post by Kevin Provance
ll you have done through this
discourse is prove to me that none of that is true, and that in the end,
you're just a butthurt child who lashes out at others, probably because
mommy didn't buy you that pony you wanted so badly as a child. Again, I
pity you.

Thus making the case of just how good I am and how much power the
little pissant allows me in his life.

Post by Kevin Provance
So, reply with whatever temper tantrum you need to. I am done with this
particular thread since you have nothing useful or interesting to
contribute.

And yet when challenged to expand upon your own thinking you fail to
provide anything of substance. Then because of the resultant derision
due to your lackluster efforts you whine that you are not taken
seriously.

Bloviating some bizarre paranoid fantasy however is quite hilarious
and I do feel you should continue in that vein as its entertainment
value is exceedingly high.

[Aratzio]

On Sun, 10 Oct 2010 10:03:45 -0400, in the land of news.groups, "Kevin

Post by Kevin Provance
Again, you clearly think I am someone who has it in for you

Hi Case, what up.

[Peter J Ross]

In news.groups on Wed, 06 Oct 2010 09:21:28 -0600, §ñühw¤£f

Post by §ñühw¤£f

Post by Aratzio
On Tue, 05 Oct 2010 09:22:07 -0600, in the land of news.groups,

Post by §ñühw¤£f

Post by Aratzio
On Mon, 4 Oct 2010 23:10:19 +0100, in the land of news.groups, "A B"

Post by A B
People could post information on which groups
are empty, which are spam-infested and which are plagued by flame wars -
even who, in their opinion, needs to be killfiled to make a group readily
usable.

Really we need a list of the horrible fuckheads that infest
newsgroups! We can get Tim Skirvin to host a web site and call it
killfile.org and list these miscreants on there. We could call it a
dungeon!
People like Adam Kerman and his *ilk* could be placed in a dungeon
never to be heard from again.
No one could possibly have any problem with that, right? Everyone
would take it so seriously and never ever make fun of such arrogant
fuckwittery, right?
In the end the forces of good and netnannyism will prevail over those
evil fuckheads incapable of recognizing that the net nannys know what
is best for everyone.

Smart people just realize theres nothing left worth reading on usenet
and leave.

Har Har ewe jest cawled yerself stoopud.

I did indeed.
I suggest we start a new alt group: alt.reasonable.discourse
<nods>

alt.config added, because you baby trolls nowadays don't know how to
crosspost properly.

In accordance with tradition, a better name would be
alt.reasonable.discourse.discuss.discuss.discuss

/me waves to the figgies. See you later!

[spooge]

In news.groups on Wed, 06 Oct 2010 09:21:28 -0600, §ñÌhw€£f

Post by §ñühw¤£f

Post by Aratzio
On Tue, 05 Oct 2010 09:22:07 -0600, in the land of news.groups,

Post by §ñühw¤£f

Post by Aratzio
On Mon, 4 Oct 2010 23:10:19 +0100, in the land of news.groups, "A

Post by A B
People could post information on which groups
are empty, which are spam-infested and which are plagued by
flame wars - even who, in their opinion, needs to be killfiled
to make a group readily usable.

Really we need a list of the horrible fuckheads that infest
newsgroups! We can get Tim Skirvin to host a web site and call it
killfile.org and list these miscreants on there. We could call it
a dungeon!
People like Adam Kerman and his *ilk* could be placed in a
dungeon never to be heard from again.
No one could possibly have any problem with that, right? Everyone
would take it so seriously and never ever make fun of such
arrogant fuckwittery, right?
In the end the forces of good and netnannyism will prevail over
those evil fuckheads incapable of recognizing that the net nannys
know what is best for everyone.

Smart people just realize theres nothing left worth reading on
usenet and leave.

Har Har ewe jest cawled yerself stoopud.

I did indeed.
I suggest we start a new alt group: alt.reasonable.discourse
<nods>

alt.config added, because you baby trolls nowadays don't know how to
crosspost properly.
In accordance with tradition, a better name would be
alt.reasonable.discourse.discuss.discuss.discuss
/me waves to the figgies. See you later!

Where the fuck have you been, mister?

[pandora]

Post by spooge

Post by Peter J Ross
In news.groups on Wed, 06 Oct 2010 09:21:28 -0600, §ñühw¤£f

Post by §ñühw¤£f

Post by Aratzio
On Tue, 05 Oct 2010 09:22:07 -0600, in the land of news.groups,

Post by §ñühw¤£f

Post by Aratzio
On Mon, 4 Oct 2010 23:10:19 +0100, in the land of news.groups, "A

People could post information on which groups are empty, which are
spam-infested and which are plagued by flame wars - even who, in
their opinion, needs to be killfiled to make a group readily
usable.

Really we need a list of the horrible fuckheads that infest
newsgroups! We can get Tim Skirvin to host a web site and call it
killfile.org and list these miscreants on there. We could call it a
dungeon!
People like Adam Kerman and his *ilk* could be placed in a dungeon
never to be heard from again.
No one could possibly have any problem with that, right? Everyone
would take it so seriously and never ever make fun of such arrogant
fuckwittery, right?
In the end the forces of good and netnannyism will prevail over
those evil fuckheads incapable of recognizing that the net nannys
know what is best for everyone.

Smart people just realize theres nothing left worth reading on
usenet and leave.

Har Har ewe jest cawled yerself stoopud.

I did indeed.
I suggest we start a new alt group: alt.reasonable.discourse
<nods>

alt.config added, because you baby trolls nowadays don't know how to
crosspost properly.
In accordance with tradition, a better name would be
alt.reasonable.discourse.discuss.discuss.discuss
/me waves to the figgies. See you later!

Where the fuck have you been, mister?

Yeah! What he said!!!!!

[Peter J Ross]

In news.groups on Fri, 08 Oct 2010 01:22:54 -0500, pandora

Post by pandora

Post by spooge
Where the fuck have you been, mister?

Yeah! What he said!!!!!

I was chased off Usenet by the denizens of soc.men. They're big and
strong and scary.

Or I was threatened with a kooksuit by a loony Ayn Rand fan and was so
scared that I spent six months hiding under my bed.

My own theory is that I was becoming rather bored so I decided to take
a break for a while, but nobody's likely to believe something so dull.

[spooge]

Post by Peter J Ross
In news.groups on Fri, 08 Oct 2010 01:22:54 -0500, pandora

Post by pandora

Post by spooge
Where the fuck have you been, mister?

Yeah! What he said!!!!!

I was chased off Usenet by the denizens of soc.men. They're big and
strong and scary.

They've popped up hereabouts a few times recently. I'd say they're better described as smelly, scabby
and sackless.

Post by Peter J Ross
Or I was threatened with a kooksuit by a loony Ayn Rand fan and was so
scared that I spent six months hiding under my bed.

That's where "Greg" is now.

Post by Peter J Ross
My own theory is that I was becoming rather bored so I decided to take
a break for a while, but nobody's likely to believe something so dull.

You came back just in time for the real fun to begin.

Is that email good?

[Peter J Ross]

In news.groups on Sat, 9 Oct 2010 02:36:01 +0000 (UTC), spooge

Post by spooge
Is that email good?

Yep.

Reply-With-Gossip-To: ***@gmail.com

[William Bagwell]

Post by Peter J Ross
In news.groups on Fri, 08 Oct 2010 01:22:54 -0500, pandora

Post by pandora

Post by spooge
Where the fuck have you been, mister?

Yeah! What he said!!!!!

I was chased off Usenet by the denizens of soc.men. They're big and
strong and scary.
Or I was threatened with a kooksuit by a loony Ayn Rand fan and was so
scared that I spent six months hiding under my bed.
My own theory is that I was becoming rather bored so I decided to take
a break for a while, but nobody's likely to believe something so dull.

Or excuse such behavior if we do. Welcome back slacker! :)

BTW your validator is down. If you have no plans to restore it, would you
object to my hosting it? For that one proponent per year who might find it
useful... <sigh>

[Peter J Ross]

In news.groups on Tue, 05 Oct 2010 09:22:07 -0600, §ñühw¤£f

Post by §ñühw¤£f

Post by Aratzio
On Mon, 4 Oct 2010 23:10:19 +0100, in the land of news.groups, "A B"

Post by A B
People could post information on which groups
are empty, which are spam-infested and which are plagued by flame wars -
even who, in their opinion, needs to be killfiled to make a group readily
usable.

Really we need a list of the horrible fuckheads that infest
newsgroups! We can get Tim Skirvin to host a web site and call it
killfile.org and list these miscreants on there. We could call it a
dungeon!
People like Adam Kerman and his *ilk* could be placed in a dungeon
never to be heard from again.
No one could possibly have any problem with that, right? Everyone
would take it so seriously and never ever make fun of such arrogant
fuckwittery, right?
In the end the forces of good and netnannyism will prevail over those
evil fuckheads incapable of recognizing that the net nannys know what
is best for everyone.

Smart people just realize theres nothing left worth reading on usenet
and leave.

That must have been happening a lot while I was away. :-)

[§ñühw¤£f]

Post by Peter J Ross
In news.groups on Tue, 05 Oct 2010 09:22:07 -0600, §ñühw¤£f

Post by §ñühw¤£f

Post by Aratzio
On Mon, 4 Oct 2010 23:10:19 +0100, in the land of news.groups, "A B"

Post by A B
People could post information on which groups
are empty, which are spam-infested and which are plagued by flame wars -
even who, in their opinion, needs to be killfiled to make a group readily
usable.

Really we need a list of the horrible fuckheads that infest
newsgroups! We can get Tim Skirvin to host a web site and call it
killfile.org and list these miscreants on there. We could call it a
dungeon!
People like Adam Kerman and his *ilk* could be placed in a dungeon
never to be heard from again.
No one could possibly have any problem with that, right? Everyone
would take it so seriously and never ever make fun of such arrogant
fuckwittery, right?
In the end the forces of good and netnannyism will prevail over those
evil fuckheads incapable of recognizing that the net nannys know what
is best for everyone.

Smart people just realize theres nothing left worth reading on usenet
and leave.

That must have been happening a lot while I was away. :-)

Oh, snap.

[A B]

Post by Aratzio
On Mon, 4 Oct 2010 23:10:19 +0100, in the land of news.groups, "A B"

Post by A B
People could post information on which groups
are empty, which are spam-infested and which are plagued by flame wars -
even who, in their opinion, needs to be killfiled to make a group readily
usable.

Really we need a list of the horrible fuckheads that infest
newsgroups! We can get Tim Skirvin to host a web site and call it
killfile.org and list these miscreants on there. We could call it a
dungeon!
People like Adam Kerman and his *ilk* could be placed in a dungeon
never to be heard from again.
No one could possibly have any problem with that, right? Everyone
would take it so seriously and never ever make fun of such arrogant
fuckwittery, right?
In the end the forces of good and netnannyism will prevail over those
evil fuckheads incapable of recognizing that the net nannys know what
is best for everyone.

There I go sounding like a prefect again. Sorry. Doesn't normally happen.
No, I think it'd suit the usual Usenet style pretty well. Everyone
contradicts each other, and you go with the one you like the sound of.
On second thoughts, most newbies would find that pretty hard going... Can't
win, really. Hence no newbies. Hence, eventually, no Usenet. (Though
it'll take a long time given the high obstinacy level. Anyone know what's
the unit of obstinacy? :-)).

[Aratzio]

On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 22:36:13 +0100, in the land of news.groups, "A B"

Post by A B

Post by Aratzio
On Mon, 4 Oct 2010 23:10:19 +0100, in the land of news.groups, "A B"

Post by A B
People could post information on which groups
are empty, which are spam-infested and which are plagued by flame wars -
even who, in their opinion, needs to be killfiled to make a group readily
usable.

Really we need a list of the horrible fuckheads that infest
newsgroups! We can get Tim Skirvin to host a web site and call it
killfile.org and list these miscreants on there. We could call it a
dungeon!
People like Adam Kerman and his *ilk* could be placed in a dungeon
never to be heard from again.
No one could possibly have any problem with that, right? Everyone
would take it so seriously and never ever make fun of such arrogant
fuckwittery, right?
In the end the forces of good and netnannyism will prevail over those
evil fuckheads incapable of recognizing that the net nannys know what
is best for everyone.

There I go sounding like a prefect again. Sorry. Doesn't normally happen.
No, I think it'd suit the usual Usenet style pretty well. Everyone
contradicts each other, and you go with the one you like the sound of.
On second thoughts, most newbies would find that pretty hard going... Can't
win, really. Hence no newbies. Hence, eventually, no Usenet. (Though
it'll take a long time given the high obstinacy level. Anyone know what's
the unit of obstinacy? :-)).

Well, the fact that the former chairman of the Bambies did exactly
what I described was the fun and ironic part.

[pandora]

Post by Aratzio
On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 22:36:13 +0100, in the land of news.groups, "A B"

Post by A B

Post by Aratzio
On Mon, 4 Oct 2010 23:10:19 +0100, in the land of news.groups, "A B"

People could post information on which groups are empty, which are
spam-infested and which are plagued by flame wars - even who, in their
opinion, needs to be killfiled to make a group readily usable.

Really we need a list of the horrible fuckheads that infest
newsgroups! We can get Tim Skirvin to host a web site and call it
killfile.org and list these miscreants on there. We could call it a
dungeon!
People like Adam Kerman and his *ilk* could be placed in a dungeon
never to be heard from again.
No one could possibly have any problem with that, right? Everyone
would take it so seriously and never ever make fun of such arrogant
fuckwittery, right?
In the end the forces of good and netnannyism will prevail over those
evil fuckheads incapable of recognizing that the net nannys know what
is best for everyone.

There I go sounding like a prefect again. Sorry. Doesn't normally
happen. No, I think it'd suit the usual Usenet style pretty well.
Everyone contradicts each other, and you go with the one you like the
sound of. On second thoughts, most newbies would find that pretty hard
going... Can't win, really. Hence no newbies. Hence, eventually, no
Usenet. (Though it'll take a long time given the high obstinacy level.
Anyone know what's the unit of obstinacy? :-)).

Well, the fact that the former chairman of the Bambies did exactly what
I described was the fun and ironic part.

Indeed. A true kook.

[Paul W. Schleck]

Post by A B
I've only been using Usenet since February 2009, so I expect some people
would think I've no business to be suggesting anything; but what I'd
appreciate, other newbies might well appreciate too. And however annoying
you might find them in practice, if Usenet is to survive there have got to
be some newbies. So here are a few random suggestions to add to the
mixture. I'm still not up to speed with the finer details of how Usenet
works, so some of these may be impossible or plain wrong. If so I
apologise.
1) Picking up on something Dave Sill said, what about a group dedicated to
reviews of other Usenet groups? There are so many groups on similar topics,
especially in the unweedable alt.* and free.* hierarchies. It'd be very
useful for newbies, and also for regular users looking for groups on a topic
they haven't tried before. People could post information on which groups
are empty, which are spam-infested and which are plagued by flame wars -
even who, in their opinion, needs to be killfiled to make a group readily
usable. (Obviously it'd need a disclaimer saying "all reviews are to be
taken with a pinch of salt".) It'd probably have to be moderated to
on-topic posts only, otherwise it'd defeat its own purpose. But it would
work even if turnover was a day or more, so perhaps getting a moderator
wouldn't be as hard as it usually seems to be. This would also work as a
webpage, which would be better for attracting newcomers to Usenet who might
not find the newsgroup. Would it even be possible to link the two
together - so that postings sent to the newsgroup were automatically
displayed on the webpage and vice versa?

That has already been tried, in the form of news.groups.reviews. From
re-reading its message archives just now:

http://groups.google.com/group/news.groups.reviews/topics?hl=en&start=420&sa=N

a summary of its history appears to be as follows:

1994: Newsgroup created:
1994-2001: Modest activity, consisting of periodically posted guidelines
and a handful of newsgroup reviews per month
2001: Change of moderator to a team that included Big-8 Board
Member Kathy Morgan
2001-2004: Gradually increasing incursions by spammers forging
moderation, and with on-topic submissions gradually dwindling
2004-2005: On-topic submissions dwindling down to almost nil
2006: Systematic forged attack on the newsgroup, apparently using a
black-hat tool called HipCrime (which used forged From lines
of actual submitters combined with article bodies generated
by statistical techniques to look like actual articles,
intended to foil Bayesian filters)
2006: RFD to remove newsgroup, no interest in taking it over,
newsgroup was removed shortly afterwards

There's certainly techniques to better guard against forgeries and
HipCrime attacks today (such that they are almost never seen anymore).
But the problem of encouraging appropriate submissions, or even
volunteers to continue to moderate the newsgroup, proved insurmountable.

Post by A B
2) Would it be possible to invent a type of newsgroup that moderators could
remove postings from AFTER they appeared? It seems to me that that might
help a bit with the difficulties of finding moderators. Postings could
appear instantly without a mod having to be always on duty. Maybe if you
had a "master copy" on one server, and other servers were to synch only to
that? It's just an idea - I don't understand how Usenet moderation is done
at all. Incidentally, is there anywhere I can find that out?

Steve Bonine already hinted as to the controversial past history of this
being proposed and not working out. Probably the most (in)famous
example of this would be Richard Depew's "Automatic Retroactive Minimal
Moderation", or ARMM, from circa 1993. A reasonable collection of past
articles on the subject may be found at the following link:

http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=ARMM+Depew&sitesearch=groups.google.com

The short version is that the Usenet community was unwilling to
recognize the authority of one individual or small group of individuals
passing judgment on all of Usenet, using the cancel system in this
manner was seen by others as abuse or forgeries likely to cause sites to
not obey cancels anymore (something that eventually came to pass), the
complexity of the required software introduced bugs that had undesirable
and unintended side effects (essentially Depew's cancel message engine
turned on itself and consumed its own cancels). Depew suffered a
serious heart attack shortly afterwards, possibly as a side-effect of
the stresses incurred from taking on such an ambitious project, and
essentially disappeared from Usenet. The lessons learned here appear to
be that it would not be practical or possible to implement this on a
Usenet-wide scale for various political and technical reasons, certainly
not with the present size of the newsgroup list and traffic volume
today.

Post by A B
3) Robomoderation isn't half bad really, if nothing else is available.
Speaking for myself, I'd say a robomoderator that catches most of the spam
is much better than nothing. And I wouldn't have thought it would be that
much more difficult to have it block certain posters who'd been suspended by
the human mod for reasons previously defined in the group charter - say,
never posting on topic, or constantly starting fights if it's not a group
where that's OK. Either way, posts could appear immediately and the mod
would only have to drop in occasionally to adjust the robot.

Someone would have to be willing to run such a robomoderator, and be
willing to absorb the potential liability of passing something that
could possibly be legally actionable (SPAM, libel, conspiracy or
incitement of unlawful activity, etc.). This also doesn't solve the
problem of newsgroups which don't get on-topic submissions anyway (e.g.,
soc.religion.shamanism). Some individual newsgroups are run this way,
but it does not appear to scale to a generalized service.

Post by A B
4) Can anything at all be done about deserted alt.* and free.* groups, or
are they there until someone manages to resurrect them or Usenet finally
collapses? There are just so many duplicate ones.

Marty touched on this one. The alt.* hierarchy emerged shortly after a
controversial newsgroup (rec.drugs, I believe) passed its vote, but many
news server site administrators refused to honor its creation. It was
intended by design as an uncontrolled hierarchy.

- --
Paul W. Schleck
***@novia.net
http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/
Finger ***@novia.net for PGP Public Key

[Peter J Ross]

In news.groups on 5 Oct 2010 11:22:02 -0500, Paul W Schleck
<...>

Post by Paul W. Schleck

Post by A B
1) Picking up on something Dave Sill said, what about a group dedicated to
reviews of other Usenet groups?

<...>

Post by Paul W. Schleck
That has already been tried, in the form of news.groups.reviews. From
http://groups.google.com/group/news.groups.reviews/topics?hl=en&start=420&sa=N
1994-2001: Modest activity, consisting of periodically posted guidelines
and a handful of newsgroup reviews per month
2001: Change of moderator to a team that included Big-8 Board
Member Kathy Morgan

Kathy wasn't a Bamby in those days. She was still pure, virtuous and
innocent! I think it was the evil Martin X Svengali who led her
astray.

Post by Paul W. Schleck
2001-2004: Gradually increasing incursions by spammers forging
moderation, and with on-topic submissions gradually dwindling
2004-2005: On-topic submissions dwindling down to almost nil
2006: Systematic forged attack on the newsgroup, apparently using a
black-hat tool called HipCrime (which used forged From lines
of actual submitters combined with article bodies generated
by statistical techniques to look like actual articles,
intended to foil Bayesian filters)

These attacks certainly happened, but the whole of Usenet, from comp.*
to soc.*, was subject to such abuse, especially in 2006/7, not just
one moderated group in news.*. HipCrime is a red herring in this case.

Post by Paul W. Schleck
2006: RFD to remove newsgroup, no interest in taking it over,
newsgroup was removed shortly afterwards

We tried very hard to revive interest in the group, but we were
wasting our time. (By "we" I mean the moderators and me, since I don't
recall anybody else being interested.)

Post by Paul W. Schleck
There's certainly techniques to better guard against forgeries and
HipCrime attacks today (such that they are almost never seen anymore).
But the problem of encouraging appropriate submissions, or even
volunteers to continue to moderate the newsgroup, proved insurmountable.

I don't recall any search for volunteers to moderate NGR. After some
discussion and a postponement of the RFD for removal, neither the
moderators nor anybody else saw any point in keeping the group. It was
a rare occasion when everybody eventually agreed.

[Mark Kramer]

Post by Paul W. Schleck

Post by A B
2) Would it be possible to invent a type of newsgroup that moderators could
remove postings from AFTER they appeared? It seems to me that that might ...

The short version is that the Usenet community was unwilling to
recognize the authority of one individual or small group of individuals
passing judgment on all of Usenet, using the cancel system in this
manner was seen by others as abuse or forgeries likely to cause sites to
not obey cancels anymore (something that eventually came to pass), the
complexity of the required software introduced bugs that had undesirable
and unintended side effects (essentially Depew's cancel message engine
turned on itself and consumed its own cancels).

It was much more spectacular than that. As I recall, the system was
in "testing" mode and the cancels were not actually treated like
cancels. Were they true cancels, they would not have appeared in
the newsgroup itself, and the ARMM system would not have generated
messages based on its own messages. It didn't consume its own messages,
it exponentially multiplied them.

And he did it in news.groups, as I recall. The Great ARMM flood.

This was concurrent with his attempt at convincing us that the voting
system could be fixed by requiring voters to register, with the idea
that nobody could register more than once...

Post by Paul W. Schleck
Someone would have to be willing to run such a robomoderator, and be
willing to absorb the potential liability of passing something that
could possibly be legally actionable (SPAM, libel, conspiracy or
incitement of unlawful activity, etc.).

There has been no serious claim that a robomoderator would create
liability for the actions of the person posting. Many groups used to
use this kind of system, at least for "well known" or "registered"
posters. Soc.support.fat-acceptance.moderated, for one. Once you
registered and promised to obey the rules, and maybe after a few
good postings, you got put on a robomoderation white-list.

The biggest problem with this system was that it didn't protect the
groups from attack. SSFAM learned this the hard way, after many months
of discussion and debate and rule-creation prior to the newsgroup vote.
One day a posting appeared from one of the group regulars discussing a
serious illness she was suffering from and saying goodbye to everyone.
Except it wasn't from her. The robo-mod system was replaced by by-hand
immediately thereafter.

[Dave Sill]

Post by A B
1) Picking up on something Dave Sill said, what about a group dedicated
to reviews of other Usenet groups?

We had news.groups.reviews but it died due to lack of submissions, if I
remember correctly.

Post by A B
2) Would it be possible to invent a type of newsgroup that moderators
could remove postings from AFTER they appeared? It seems to me that
that might help a bit with the difficulties of finding moderators.
Postings could appear instantly without a mod having to be always on
duty. Maybe if you had a "master copy" on one server, and other servers
were to synch only to that? It's just an idea - I don't understand how
Usenet moderation is done at all. Incidentally, is there anywhere I can
find that out?

Moderation is simple: postings to moderated groups are e-mailed to the
moderators, who, usually through the help of a moderation package, either
approve them and post them to the group or reject them, optionally
notifying the poster via e-mail.

I'm not sure how post-facto moderation would work unless readers are able
to distinguish unapproved and approved messages.

Post by A B
3) Robomoderation isn't half bad really, if nothing else is available.
Speaking for myself, I'd say a robomoderator that catches most of the
spam is much better than nothing. And I wouldn't have thought it would
be that much more difficult to have it block certain posters who'd been
suspended by the human mod for reasons previously defined in the group
charter - say, never posting on topic, or constantly starting fights if
it's not a group where that's OK. Either way, posts could appear
immediately and the mod would only have to drop in occasionally to
adjust the robot.

Spam filtering is better handled on the server level, I think. Blocking
certain posters is trivial, but changing ones posting identity is also
trivial, so blocking posters is actually nearly impossible if the poster
doesn't want to be blocked.

Post by A B
4) Can anything at all be done about deserted alt.* and free.* groups,
or are they there until someone mananges to resurrect them or Usenet
finally collapses? There are just so many duplicate ones.

There's no way to centrally manage the set of groups that exist because
each news server can carry or not carry any possible group. The best you
can really do is maintain a list of groups available on most servers, and
even that isn't easy.

-Dave

[Peter J Ross]

Post by A B
I've only been using Usenet since February 2009, so I expect some people
would think I've no business to be suggesting anything; but what I'd
appreciate, other newbies might well appreciate too. And however annoying
you might find them in practice, if Usenet is to survive there have got to
be some newbies. So here are a few random suggestions to add to the
mixture. I'm still not up to speed with the finer details of how Usenet
works, so some of these may be impossible or plain wrong. If so I
apologise.
1) Picking up on something Dave Sill said, what about a group dedicated to
reviews of other Usenet groups?

We had news.groups.reviews. Efforts were made to keep it alive, but
they failed, so it was decided to shut it down.

<...>

Post by A B
2) Would it be possible to invent a type of newsgroup that moderators could
remove postings from AFTER they appeared?

This is called retro-moderation. It's been tried and has failed so
spectacularly that some of us regard retro-moderation as verging on
being a form of net-abuse.

<...>

Post by A B
I don't understand how Usenet moderation is done
at all. Incidentally, is there anywhere I can find that out?

There are various FAQs, some of which may even be quite up to date.

Post by A B
3) Robomoderation isn't half bad really, if nothing else is available.
Speaking for myself, I'd say a robomoderator that catches most of the spam
is much better than nothing. And I wouldn't have thought it would be that
much more difficult to have it block certain posters who'd been suspended by
the human mod for reasons previously defined in the group charter - say,
never posting on topic, or constantly starting fights if it's not a group
where that's OK. Either way, posts could appear immediately and the mod
would only have to drop in occasionally to adjust the robot.

This kind of thing is already done where the moderators think it appropriate.

Post by A B
4) Can anything at all be done about deserted alt.* and free.* groups, or
are they there until someone mananges to resurrect them or Usenet finally
collapses? There are just so many duplicate ones.

"rmgroups are meaningless" - especially in alt.* and free.*. So it's
up to the server admins to decide whether they want to weed their list
of newsgroups from time to time.

[Peter J Ross]

In news.groups on Thu, 9 Sep 2010 15:45:08 -0700 (PDT), *Anarcissie*

Post by *Anarcissie*
It seems to me that Usenet has declined to the point where
one might want to consider technological fixes like changes
to the standards. Or perhaps the situation is hopeless.

... says a Google Groper. My irony meter is belching purple smoke,
and I've only been back in news.groups half an hour!

[Aatu Koskensilta]

My irony meter is belching purple smoke, and I've only been back in
news.groups half an hour!

It's nice to have you back. But where on Earth have you been hiding all
this time?

[Peter J Ross]

In news.groups on Fri, 08 Oct 2010 17:35:27 +0300, Aatu Koskensilta

Post by Aatu Koskensilta

My irony meter is belching purple smoke, and I've only been back in
news.groups half an hour!

It's nice to have you back.

I'm pleased to see that you're still here.

Post by Aatu Koskensilta
But where on Earth have you been hiding all this time?

I took a job cataloguing Adam H Kerman's vast collection of bow ties.
Obviously, I'm not even half way through the work, but he's allowed me
to take a few days off.

[Aatu Koskensilta]

Post by Peter J Ross
I took a job cataloguing Adam H Kerman's vast collection of bow ties.
Obviously, I'm not even half way through the work, but he's allowed me
to take a few days off.

Preposterous lies! You didn't miss much during your absence, though. The
only notable incident I can recall was Adam getting his knickers in a
knot over a feature of English that's been perfectly standard and
acceptable since the dawn of time. Each to their own, I guess.