Re: Why Usenet is worthless!

!Jones

On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 09:34:51 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech "Edward
Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote:

>Usenet will soon be as dead as a door nail. It has no redeeming features
>whatsoever. It only existed for as long as it did because it was based on a
>new technology that fascinated everyone.

Actually, it is based on a protocol that predates TCP/IP. By Internet
standards, it's ancient... its roots are in the earliest propagation
algorithms of MILNET; it was fully functional by around '78 or so.
Far from being "a new technology that fascinat[s] everyone", Usenet is
an anachronism!

And, yes, Ed... you're free to say anything you want to say. The
problem is that so is everyone else. It is also true that you must
put up with a shower of morons. Get over it. I have found that
whining about it doesn't change a thing.

Jones

Say, do you wear Spandex, Ed? Someone gave me an expensive cycling
outfit that they had "outgrown" (at the waist); I put it on and
decided that I couldn't wear it in public with a straight face. I
tell you, sir, a self respecting faggot wouldn't be caught in some of
those outfits! What do you think?

!Jones

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:44:18 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech "Edward
Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote:

>Since you seem to know something about Usenet, you can tell me why it is
>that the kooks from 'alt.usenet.kooks' never seem to have any "properties"
>to their messages when you check it under "File". How are they able to
>eliminate this information? Of course, they are criminal scumbags, but still
>it is of interest to me to know how they do it.
>
>> But, you never answered my question: what is your opinion of the
>> bicycle clothing. Hey! Did you see that nude bike ride... where?...
>> I wanna say Seattle? I bet that was a hoot! Would you ride a bicycle
>> naked? I'd want at least a jockey strap to keep my balls from
>> bouncing on the seat. I think that would hurt.
>
>You answer my question above and then MAYBE I will treat your query with the
>contempt it deserves.

OK, Ed... quid pro quo is acceptable to me. That's how *I* deal with
a troll; I make them answer my question first, so turnabout is fair
play.

Let me start with "Network News Transfer Protocol" (NNTP) If you want
lots of geek information, then read the 1986 Request For Comment (RFC)
available at http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc977.txt ; be warned: it's long
and, IMO, boring, so I won't paste it... I did once and my account was
canceled!

The bottom line is that an NNTP packet simply has no properties other
than those in the header. As I said: it's archaic; your server simply
spews it forth and the next server does likewise. After a
predetermined number of such spewings, it's dead, Your reader
downloads the headers your server has... there is no guarantee that it
will reach all of the servers... it's the Internet equivalent of a
hand grenade tossed into a crowed room in the hope everyone will hear
about it.

You use giganews which has a web-based reader and, I assume, based on
your question, you're using that. A troll will always use a more
basic method of access. For example: I can buy bandwidth on a server
that allows injection from email, If I did this, then my IP would not
appear in the headers. (There is an option someplace to "show all
headers" or something like that. Look for it.)

Can you tell me, from my Usenet headers, the city from which I post?
In fact, you can! Locate the "NNTP-Posting-Host:" field and paste it
into: http://www.arin.net/whois/ then tell me where I am. I'll tell
you when you're warm. I have no fear of people... I could hide it,
but why? (Hint: I'm in Texas.)

And, so... I have tried to address your question honestly and
completely. Your answer is: because a raw NNTP message *has* no
properties beyond those you have readily available in the header
fields.

Quid pro Quo:

Would you wear "Spandex" or would you prefer to ride naked? (Assume
that a jockey strap is allowed.)

Jones

Michael Press

In article <uq7e54l3409qp36vhnko318aiafpnjjln0@4ax.com>,
!Jones <hi@there.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 09:34:51 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech "Edward
> Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote:
>
> >Usenet will soon be as dead as a door nail. It has no redeeming features
> >whatsoever. It only existed for as long as it did because it was based on a
> >new technology that fascinated everyone.
>
> Actually, it is based on a protocol that predates TCP/IP. By Internet
> standards, it's ancient... its roots are in the earliest propagation
> algorithms of MILNET; it was fully functional by around '78 or so.
> Far from being "a new technology that fascinat[s] everyone", Usenet is
> an anachronism!

Seven bit ascii? No mark up? No images? Disgusting!

--
Michael Press

terryc

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:40:03 -0700, Michael Press wrote:


> Seven bit ascii? No mark up? No images? Disgusting!

But all ones realy needs to communicate the esscence of your point.

Mike Vandeman

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 16:16:29 -0500, !Jones <hi@there.org> wrote:

>On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:44:18 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech "Edward
>Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote:
>
>>Since you seem to know something about Usenet, you can tell me why it is
>>that the kooks from 'alt.usenet.kooks' never seem to have any "properties"
>>to their messages when you check it under "File". How are they able to
>>eliminate this information? Of course, they are criminal scumbags, but still
>>it is of interest to me to know how they do it.
>>
>>> But, you never answered my question: what is your opinion of the
>>> bicycle clothing. Hey! Did you see that nude bike ride... where?...
>>> I wanna say Seattle? I bet that was a hoot! Would you ride a bicycle
>>> naked? I'd want at least a jockey strap to keep my balls from
>>> bouncing on the seat. I think that would hurt.
>>
>>You answer my question above and then MAYBE I will treat your query with the
>>contempt it deserves.
>
>OK, Ed... quid pro quo is acceptable to me. That's how *I* deal with
>a troll; I make them answer my question first, so turnabout is fair
>play.
>
>Let me start with "Network News Transfer Protocol" (NNTP) If you want
>lots of geek information, then read the 1986 Request For Comment (RFC)
>available at http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc977.txt ; be warned: it's long
>and, IMO, boring, so I won't paste it... I did once and my account was
>canceled!
>
>The bottom line is that an NNTP packet simply has no properties other
>than those in the header. As I said: it's archaic; your server simply
>spews it forth and the next server does likewise. After a
>predetermined number of such spewings, it's dead, Your reader
>downloads the headers your server has... there is no guarantee that it
>will reach all of the servers... it's the Internet equivalent of a
>hand grenade tossed into a crowed room in the hope everyone will hear
>about it.
>
>You use giganews which has a web-based reader and, I assume, based on
>your question, you're using that. A troll will always use a more
>basic method of access. For example: I can buy bandwidth on a server
>that allows injection from email, If I did this, then my IP would not
>appear in the headers. (There is an option someplace to "show all
>headers" or something like that. Look for it.)
>
>Can you tell me, from my Usenet headers, the city from which I post?
>In fact, you can! Locate the "NNTP-Posting-Host:" field and paste it
>into: http://www.arin.net/whois/ then tell me where I am.

http://samspade.org/ is better.

I'll tell
>you when you're warm. I have no fear of people... I could hide it,
>but why? (Hint: I'm in Texas.)
>
>And, so... I have tried to address your question honestly and
>completely. Your answer is: because a raw NNTP message *has* no
>properties beyond those you have readily available in the header
>fields.
>
>Quid pro Quo:
>
>Would you wear "Spandex" or would you prefer to ride naked? (Assume
>that a jockey strap is allowed.)
>
>Jones
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

!Jones

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:20:27 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech "Edward
Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote:

>I see that you are using Forte Agent for your newsreader and that your field
>is NNTP-Posting-Host: 75.0.233.89. I am not going to look up these numbers
>to see where you are from.

Well, I don't blame you... what difference does it make, anyway?

My point is that a Usenet posting is simply text, period. It hasn't
changed much since the mid-eighties and, back then, you got a mouse at
a pet store and properties were real estate. If you see any, then
someone's client is tacking them on. My reader is a relic and doesn't
see them.

But, yes, I am, in fact, a troll. I say, would you like to have an
argument?

Jones

Michael Press

In article <578g54hcie66m1pfucf2a59vma6migu9iu@4ax.com>,
!Jones <hi@there.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:44:18 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech "Edward
> Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote:
>
> >Since you seem to know something about Usenet, you can tell me why it is
> >that the kooks from 'alt.usenet.kooks' never seem to have any "properties"
> >to their messages when you check it under "File". How are they able to
> >eliminate this information? Of course, they are criminal scumbags, but still
> >it is of interest to me to know how they do it.
> >
> >> But, you never answered my question: what is your opinion of the
> >> bicycle clothing. Hey! Did you see that nude bike ride... where?...
> >> I wanna say Seattle? I bet that was a hoot! Would you ride a bicycle
> >> naked? I'd want at least a jockey strap to keep my balls from
> >> bouncing on the seat. I think that would hurt.
> >
> >You answer my question above and then MAYBE I will treat your query with the
> >contempt it deserves.
>
> OK, Ed... quid pro quo is acceptable to me. That's how *I* deal with
> a troll; I make them answer my question first, so turnabout is fair
> play.
>
> Let me start with "Network News Transfer Protocol" (NNTP) If you want
> lots of geek information, then read the 1986 Request For Comment (RFC)
> available at http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc977.txt ; be warned: it's long
> and, IMO, boring, so I won't paste it... I did once and my account was
> canceled!

At least direct him to the current one.
RFC 977 is superseded by RFC 3977.
<http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3977.txt>

--
Michael Press

!Jones

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:28:35 -0700, in rec.bicycles.tech Michael Press
<rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote:

>At least direct him to the current one.
>RFC 977 is superseded by RFC 3977.

The 977 - 86 was the bible for a long time. I haven't coded anything
moving on NNTP in half a decade. I'm aware that several changes have
been adopted. For example, under 977, one could add an attachment
(hey, look! a valentine!) ... or, at least, it wasn't explicitly
denied. This caused lots of confusion, as I recall, and it is well
that it's gone.

I'm sure there are other changes, but 977 was and still is the
seminal, primary source document. I always used to post that when I
wanted to make myself a PITA. That usually resulted in my account
being terminated with extreme prejudice; however, any troll worth his
or her beans had a hot standby.

Jones

Melinda Shore

In article <m6vh54tqt7cpc0dmgh2v3sndh3jdf034h9@4ax.com>,
!Jones <hi@there.org> wrote:
>I'm sure there are other changes, but 977 was and still is the
>seminal, primary source document.

I've read a couple of your posts and they're largely
horseshit. I imagine 977 has some historical interest for
somebody or other but if someone wanted to sit down and code
up a new implementation they certainly would not be starting
with a superceded document.

>I always used to post that when I
>wanted to make myself a PITA. That usually resulted in my account
>being terminated with extreme prejudice;

I doubt that very much.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis - shore@panix.com

Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community

!Jones

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:58:09 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech "Edward
Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote:

>Only an idiot is interested in argument if there is no issue at stake.

I thought you said that you were "argumentative"... surely there are a
few issues lying about someplace.

Hey, I got an issue! I think we ought to breach *all* artificial
levees and make 'em illegal. If you want to build there, then fine,
but tax dollars shouldn't be used to hold back water and let the
insurance companies base their rates on the real risk, nay, certainty
of a flood.

The issue isn't *one* levee... one will work. When everybody up and
down river builds 'em, then the water has no place to go but up, so
now it floods places that didn't flood before the CoE started screwing
with it. And, when it *does* breach, it's catastrophic.

I heard that the oldest written commandment that has been interpreted
says don't come between a river and its flood plain... if that's not
true, then I didn't say it!

Jones

!Jones

On 18 Jun 2008 08:37:00 -0400, in rec.bicycles.tech shore@panix.com
(Melinda Shore) wrote:

>I've read a couple of your posts and they're largely
>horseshit.

Now, *that* hurts my feelings!

!Jones

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:20:14 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech "Edward
Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote:

>The argument has to be ABOUT something other than the ether.

Absolutely not! It's quite possible to have a perfectly good argument
over *nothing* at all. Anyone who would disagree with that is either
a fool, drunk, or a liar... or some combination of the above!

What an absurd statement!

Jones

Mike Vandeman

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 13:20:58 -0500, !Jones <hi@there.org> wrote:

>On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:58:09 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech "Edward
>Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote:
>
>>Only an idiot is interested in argument if there is no issue at stake.
>
>I thought you said that you were "argumentative"... surely there are a
>few issues lying about someplace.
>
>Hey, I got an issue! I think we ought to breach *all* artificial
>levees and make 'em illegal. If you want to build there, then fine,
>but tax dollars shouldn't be used to hold back water and let the
>insurance companies base their rates on the real risk, nay, certainty
>of a flood.

Now THAT's actually a great idea! But why didn't you post it in the
proper newsgroups?

>The issue isn't *one* levee... one will work. When everybody up and
>down river builds 'em, then the water has no place to go but up, so
>now it floods places that didn't flood before the CoE started screwing
>with it. And, when it *does* breach, it's catastrophic.
>
>I heard that the oldest written commandment that has been interpreted
>says don't come between a river and its flood plain... if that's not
>true, then I didn't say it!
>
>Jones
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

!Jones

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 14:28:36 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech "Edward
Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote:

>> Absolutely not! It's quite possible to have a perfectly good argument
>> over *nothing* at all. Anyone who would disagree with that is either
>> a fool, drunk, or a liar... or some combination of the above!
>>
>> What an absurd statement!
>
>The only absurdity here is you. I suggest you get lost on some other
>newsgroup. The kooks group (alt.usenet.kooks) should suit you.

See! We're arguing about nothing and you're losing.

Certainly you can argue about nothing... if you don't have a topic,
how could you possibly agree?

QED

Jones