Posted by krw on January 10, 2010, 12:18 am
On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 13:17:52 -0500, nospam@nevis.com wrote:
>keithw86@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Jan 8, 9:20 am, nos...@nevis.com wrote:
>>> John Fields wrote:
>>>>> Usenet reads like a book, top posters are a pain in the ass. Doesn't
>>>>> matter anyway, usenet is dead
>>>>> Exactly, so why would you start at the bottom with your post?
>>>> ---
>>>> He didn't, he _finished_ at the bottom of the thread.
>>>> Moreover, if your "Exactly" indicates agreement, then posting your
>>>> reply at the beginning of the book instead of at the end indicates that
>>>> you're as ignorant about chronolgy as you are about usenetiquette.
>>>> Little surprise from someone who reads USENET with a "browser"
>>>> ---
>>>>> Bottom posting arguments and other general stupidity is killing it.
>>>> ---
>>>> Bottom-posting isn't, since it's the norm for USENET posting, but
>>>> general stupidity might be, viewed in the light of your recent posts and
>>>> Google's access policies.
>>>> However, Michael B, who at:
>>>> 76754153-f710-4fd0-8a3c-e30d5bca5...@a15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com
>>>> stated:
>>>> "Hmm, now that I think of it, there is an
>>>> enormous number of specific-interest
>>>> groups, more being formed all the time.",
>>>> indicating that _he_ thinks USENET is growing.
>>>> Do you disagree?
>>>> JF
>>> All of the groups I have used since 1996 have shrunk to a few members
>>> who seem to post out of habit or are " just checking in". Some now such
>>> as alt.culture.luddites, are so vacant they don't even have spam posts.
>>> My ISP , as well as a number of others stopped free access to newsgroups
>>> three years ago, which seemed to be about the time new membership in any
>>> of the groups I used began to decline.
>>
>> I still follow several quite active NGs. Some continue to pay for
>> Usenet access. I've been paying for at least five years, well before
>> my ISPs dropped free access. It's not expensive.
>Most of my groups have gone from well over 100 posts a day to less than
>five a week. One group I follow, Rec.antiques, had over 23,000
>subscribers in 1997- 2000, now it has 605, but it goes for weeks without
>anything but spam posts. It seems that no new members are coming on
>board, the last one out please turn off the lights :~(((((
Because the NGs you follow are drying up, you can't extrapolate
anything to the Usenet in general. Some newsgroups are doing quite
well, in fact.
Posted by nospam on January 10, 2010, 1:41 am
krw wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 13:17:52 -0500, nospam@nevis.com wrote:
>
>> keithw86@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Jan 8, 9:20 am, nos...@nevis.com wrote:
>>>> John Fields wrote:
>>>>>> Usenet reads like a book, top posters are a pain in the ass. Doesn't
>>>>>> matter anyway, usenet is dead
>>>>>> Exactly, so why would you start at the bottom with your post?
>>>>> ---
>>>>> He didn't, he _finished_ at the bottom of the thread.
>>>>> Moreover, if your "Exactly" indicates agreement, then posting your
>>>>> reply at the beginning of the book instead of at the end indicates that
>>>>> you're as ignorant about chronolgy as you are about usenetiquette.
>>>>> Little surprise from someone who reads USENET with a "browser"
>>>>> ---
>>>>>> Bottom posting arguments and other general stupidity is killing it.
>>>>> ---
>>>>> Bottom-posting isn't, since it's the norm for USENET posting, but
>>>>> general stupidity might be, viewed in the light of your recent posts and
>>>>> Google's access policies.
>>>>> However, Michael B, who at:
>>>>> 76754153-f710-4fd0-8a3c-e30d5bca5...@a15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com
>>>>> stated:
>>>>> "Hmm, now that I think of it, there is an
>>>>> enormous number of specific-interest
>>>>> groups, more being formed all the time.",
>>>>> indicating that _he_ thinks USENET is growing.
>>>>> Do you disagree?
>>>>> JF
>>>> All of the groups I have used since 1996 have shrunk to a few members
>>>> who seem to post out of habit or are " just checking in". Some now such
>>>> as alt.culture.luddites, are so vacant they don't even have spam posts.
>>>> My ISP , as well as a number of others stopped free access to newsgroups
>>>> three years ago, which seemed to be about the time new membership in any
>>>> of the groups I used began to decline.
>>> I still follow several quite active NGs. Some continue to pay for
>>> Usenet access. I've been paying for at least five years, well before
>>> my ISPs dropped free access. It's not expensive.
>>
>> Most of my groups have gone from well over 100 posts a day to less than
>> five a week. One group I follow, Rec.antiques, had over 23,000
>> subscribers in 1997- 2000, now it has 605, but it goes for weeks without
>> anything but spam posts. It seems that no new members are coming on
>> board, the last one out please turn off the lights :~(((((
>
> Because the NGs you follow are drying up, you can't extrapolate
> anything to the Usenet in general. Some newsgroups are doing quite
> well, in fact.
Come on, admit it. I don't like the fact it's dying anymore then the
next regular user. I've a wide range of interests from a-z and all the
groups are a shadow of what they once were. Even this one is down to
1105 members, of which only about a dozen people regularly post.
When you see a group with only a half dozen threads going and days
between new posts its days are numbered.
Posted by Michael A. Terrell on January 10, 2010, 4:23 am
nospam@nevis.com wrote:
> Come on, admit it. I don't like the fact it's dying anymore then the
> next regular user. I've a wide range of interests from a-z and all the
> groups are a shadow of what they once were. Even this one is down to
> 1105 members, of which only about a dozen people regularly post.
> When you see a group with only a half dozen threads going and days
> between new posts its days are numbered.
Then its time for youto unplug your computer and beat it with a
sledge hammer. When there is nothing left that you vcan identify, start
banging your head into a brick wall while yelling, "It'll soon be all
over!!!"
--
Greed is the root of all eBay.
Posted by nospam on January 10, 2010, 4:38 am
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
> nospam@nevis.com wrote:
>
>> Come on, admit it. I don't like the fact it's dying anymore then the
>> next regular user. I've a wide range of interests from a-z and all the
>> groups are a shadow of what they once were. Even this one is down to
>> 1105 members, of which only about a dozen people regularly post.
>> When you see a group with only a half dozen threads going and days
>> between new posts its days are numbered.
>
> Then its time for youto unplug your computer and beat it with a
> sledge hammer. When there is nothing left that you vcan identify, start
> banging your head into a brick wall while yelling, "It'll soon be all
> over!!!"
>
Typical, don't like the message and attack the messenger....You don't
believe postings are now far lower to this group than what they were
even two years ago?
Posted by Sjouke Burry on January 10, 2010, 5:46 am
nospam@nevis.com wrote:
> Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>> nospam@nevis.com wrote:
>>
>>> Come on, admit it. I don't like the fact it's dying anymore then the
>>> next regular user. I've a wide range of interests from a-z and all the
>>> groups are a shadow of what they once were. Even this one is down to
>>> 1105 members, of which only about a dozen people regularly post.
>>> When you see a group with only a half dozen threads going and days
>>> between new posts its days are numbered.
>> Then its time for youto unplug your computer and beat it with a
>> sledge hammer. When there is nothing left that you vcan identify, start
>> banging your head into a brick wall while yelling, "It'll soon be all
>> over!!!"
>>
>
>
> Typical, don't like the message and attack the messenger....You don't
> believe postings are now far lower to this group than what they were
> even two years ago?
You start blathering on a group where there direct disproof of your
opinion.
Daily a batch of messages, and only when people like you come around,
trolling , things get ugly.
So improve the group and vanish.....
XML site map
>> On Jan 8, 9:20 am, nos...@nevis.com wrote:
>>> John Fields wrote:
>>>>> Usenet reads like a book, top posters are a pain in the ass. Doesn't
>>>>> matter anyway, usenet is dead
>>>>> Exactly, so why would you start at the bottom with your post?
>>>> ---
>>>> He didn't, he _finished_ at the bottom of the thread.
>>>> Moreover, if your "Exactly" indicates agreement, then posting your
>>>> reply at the beginning of the book instead of at the end indicates that
>>>> you're as ignorant about chronolgy as you are about usenetiquette.
>>>> Little surprise from someone who reads USENET with a "browser"
>>>> ---
>>>>> Bottom posting arguments and other general stupidity is killing it.
>>>> ---
>>>> Bottom-posting isn't, since it's the norm for USENET posting, but
>>>> general stupidity might be, viewed in the light of your recent posts and
>>>> Google's access policies.
>>>> However, Michael B, who at:
>>>> 76754153-f710-4fd0-8a3c-e30d5bca5...@a15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com
>>>> stated:
>>>> "Hmm, now that I think of it, there is an
>>>> enormous number of specific-interest
>>>> groups, more being formed all the time.",
>>>> indicating that _he_ thinks USENET is growing.
>>>> Do you disagree?
>>>> JF
>>> All of the groups I have used since 1996 have shrunk to a few members
>>> who seem to post out of habit or are " just checking in". Some now such
>>> as alt.culture.luddites, are so vacant they don't even have spam posts.
>>> My ISP , as well as a number of others stopped free access to newsgroups
>>> three years ago, which seemed to be about the time new membership in any
>>> of the groups I used began to decline.
>>
>> I still follow several quite active NGs. Some continue to pay for
>> Usenet access. I've been paying for at least five years, well before
>> my ISPs dropped free access. It's not expensive.
>Most of my groups have gone from well over 100 posts a day to less than
>five a week. One group I follow, Rec.antiques, had over 23,000
>subscribers in 1997- 2000, now it has 605, but it goes for weeks without
>anything but spam posts. It seems that no new members are coming on
>board, the last one out please turn off the lights :~(((((