I was not aware that the usenet community viewed posting via Google
with such distaste. Thanks to BD for the link.
However, I am not saying abandon Google or the usenet via Google, but
rather be aware that there is a whole other world out there that uses
this forum in a slightly different way.
And maybe write a note to that ethereal Google person in San
Francisco to add filtering to Google groups.
I guess I'm a lamer
For the record.
I used to agree with that site and even flew that URL in my signature
for quite a while. I removed it many months ago having seen some well
reasoned arguments by some very smart people to do so. At that time I
also stopped kill filing Google Groups users based on where they post
I still don't like what Google is doing to Usenet however, but my issue
is now and always has been with Google Groups, not its users.
After I run your program, let's make love like crazed weasels, OK?
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 11:18:46 +0000, Black Dragon wrote:
It just shows that there are those who think of usenet for usenet's sake
and that we should perhaps be more sensitive to that aspect because they
are the ones that keep the wheels and cogs greased.
I asked Google about moderation. Let's see if they respond.
Part of your rationale to moderate in place is to preserve the history /
tradition of comp.cad.solidworks. Usenet pre-dates the Internet. And the
Internet far pre-dates Solidworks. Before TCP/IP was created network news
was transferred using UUCP (Unix to Unix copy) over direct phone modem
connections. Remember the acoustic couplers of days of yore? Anyway, if
ccs history is important, so is Usenet history. You don't get to pick and
choose which history and traditions are important while ignoring others.
As of this morning, three of the 9 Big 8 board members so far have said
they wouldn't vote for moderation in place.
An extremely tough road is ahead of you if you continue. Best of luck to
you if you do.
Rumour has it that the intrepid New Zealanders have finally discovered
Which is interesting because I haven't even started the process to
present the moderation to them. It seems somebody prematurely cross
posted this discussion to news.groups in order to derail. The
procedure to get such changes starts with discussion on the forum in
question and THEN moves to news.groups when there is consensus.
I am sure you will support the group when it comes down to it. But
then, maybe not.
That may be how you perceive it but that's not the case. Knowing for
certain a proposal to change any newsgroup from unmoderated to moderated
wouldn't pass a vote by the B8MB (I've been reading news.groups for many
many years now, unlike you and seemingly everyone who posts here I know
how Usenet works and how things are done on it) I did you a BIG favor.
Like Gary Burnore (owner and admin of nntp server news.databasix.com)
said, "you should be thanking" me, not criticizing me.
It doesn't matter when/if your alleged proposal to moderate ccs in place
was discussed in news.groups, the results would have undoubtedly been
exactly the same.
Do not blame your own ignorance of how things are done on Usenet and in
the Big 8 hierarchy on me.
Do consider yourself educated, however.
I'll likely never support moderating an existing unmoderated newsgroup
simply because it is impossible for it to be 100% successful. I can't
even say I'd support a companion moderated group at this time. I'd have
to see the rationale for creating the group in a formal RFD and the
ensuing discussion in news.groups.proposals and news.groups before
making up my mind.
And for what it's worth, if the rationale to create a new moderated
newsgroup is merely to just get rid of the little bit of noise posted
here, that is yet another up hill battle.
It needs to be known proposals for moderated groups to replace groups
which are far far more troll infested than ccs is now have failed
miserably. However, such proposals have been successful too. Suggest
look up discussion in news.groups and news.groups.proposals about
rec.ponds.moderated being created to supplant rec.ponds mainly because
of an extremely vicious flame war between two people. Do keep in mind
what you see here in ccs is barely a blip on the radar in comparison.
Of course, you said creating another moderated group isn't a viable
alternative anyway, so what I just had to say is irrelevant because
I'm here just to derail any proposals, eh?
Meanwhile back at the oasis, the Ay-rabs wuz busy a-eatin' their dates!
Yes I'm not as Usenet savvy as you. But I am doing my homework and I did
read the Big8 wiki before starting in on this and familiarized myself
with their written procedures. I felt that part of my job is to educate
those that would moderate as well as the group on just how these changes
work and indeed how the Usenet is setup because most people who post
here, and rightly so, concern themselves with SW much more than the
intricacies of Usenet. That is not to disparage Usenet, it is just a
fact of life. As it is I think that the majority of SW users on the
thread in question were not even aware of the implications of the cross
post so those who were most vociferous there were the against crowd. And
the Big8 folks saw only those agree/disagree posts and discounted them
all as the result of Matt's blog which I can assure you they weren't.
I'm not that dumb to not know that uucp and the usenet were in place
prior to what we now know as the internet. Having done email on bitnet
many years ago from an IBM main frame I have watched this history
unfold. I have used uucp dialup connections many moons ago. And I used
to use the venerable dialup bbs. In fact I still have my Sinclair 1000
around somewhere along with a Vic-20, C64 and Amiga. I even have a CPM
Kaypro and a couple 8088 PCs and a Compaq luggable. But that is not the
history I am talking about. When I speak of history in the context of
ccsw the word refers to the archive of usenet postings that is kept,
AFAIK, only on Google. This archive goes back to the first days of ccsw
and is a SolidWorks history, not a history of networking or usenet in
particular. Because it is only on Google it makes sense to use Google
for a newsreader as well.
Cross posting to news.groups had nothing to do with it, Matt's blog
had nothing to do with it. If you read what the board members said,
even a 100% YES vote from this group wouldn't make a difference those
board members who replied, they were all NO votes. The board is
predisposed to vote NO and they were quite clear why, none of the real
reasons for their NO vote have anything to do with what you posted in
the above quote.
ya know,.. the more I read about usenet,.. the more I see the people
involved to be conservative gate keepers of a dilapidated antiquated
system,.. and,.. that is,.. the problem, issue,..
What they write is not what they mean or what they stand for,.. free
speech? I see this charade as another form of broken control.
I feel like I read something from the GOP.
That's pretty perceptive. You must have kids.
Fortunately this to will pass. Twenty years from now what we all know as
Usenet, or the Internet for that matter, will appear to be either a bad joke
or a good initial attempt that lead to something better.
There are some on the Big8 that see the usenet as staying like it is.
There are some who accept it for what it is but sigh when doing so.
And there are some that would like to change it. What is needed is an
answer to how to do what we wanted to do without Redmond or Washington
becoming involved. We are asking to tame the tongues of men, something
no man can do.
The biggest problem is that while the usenet software is capable of
doing what we want, it is highly configurable but many server admins
just won't allow it to be configured as we would like. If we could
somehow get google to allow us to moderate their feed only we would
solve a lot. And if we formed a new group it would take time to
propagate it to the thousands of servers. It is too bad that the RFD
for usenet doesn't allow local moderation or maybe it does and I don't
Unfortunately we can't model it in SW and make the problem go away
Thanks for the link.
Ever since that free german newsreader became 'not so free', I have
just used Google Groups because it was easy.
I had no idea that I was a pariah/lamer for doing it via Google.
Guilty as charged
I never felt especially cool posting here, but I felt I was helping so
the act itself was cool from the standpoint of the golden rule. I had
no idea that the source of my posts would tag me somehow as a lamer.
If you and I are from the same tribe in hoping to bring this newsgroup
back to the great tool that it was (and I think you are), I think that
it needs to embrace the google posters.
There are folks who work in environments that will not allow them to
download newsreader software but still have stuff to add to the
conversation about SolidWorks. I think that the restrictions (logins,
licensing info issues, etc) are the worst thing about the Solidworks
hosted forums - it would be great if there was one place where we
could go without restrictions (except for extremely minor moderation
to take care of EXTREME violations and abuse)
-Ed 'lamer' Eaton
Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.