The Branchline Goods Yard is a new family run Model Railway site.
We are trying to get a Gallery and Forum started and would genuinely
appreciated any contributions from railway modellers.
How can you help?
Send your Model Railway Layout pictures & descriptions for posting on
Contribute to our Forum with News or Questions or sell your unwanted
Go to the Gallery at
or to the Forum at
Any genuine & relevant contributions from Model Railway enthusiasts
would be very welcome.
This is not a Forum, it is usenet. You clearly didn't think.
To the OP:
There are, however, plenty of other Fora. Why not negotiate for your
own section on RMWeb or MRF. Why dilute the internet with yet another
forum? Sorry, but I will be giving it a miss.
Clearly you didn't think like an adult
Hate to disillusion you but they are one and the same.
There are some web based enitiies that perhaps appear in a slightly
different format, but they still consist of Threads and Posts.
The web based forum is controlled by the person hosting the site.
Virginmedia changed from usenet forums to web based mainly I suspect
because they were getting too much negative feedback. Post anything
negative about them on there now and they delete it and repremand you.
So much for free speach. The other drawback IMO is the sanitised
nature of them and it can get very clicky on certain web forums plus
you have to sign in every time you want to post.
Usenet IMO is much better, ok you have to put up with the trolls, spam
and idiots but some groups I subscribe to are very good and do not
I look forward to your reasoning behind that assertion. In particular,
perhaps you would like to discuss in what way usenet groups are hosted
on a central server in the way a web forum is. Who is responsible for
backing up the content of a usenet group as opposed to a web forum,
A forum is a place for discussion - a usage going back well over 2000 years.
As a place for discussion, a USENET group is fairly obviously a forum -
just as a face-to-face discussion group is, or Hyde Park corner for that
"Jeff" reffered to fora in general - the assumption that this equated
directly to Web Forums was, so far as I can tell, yours. The assumption
that they are the same would have come as a surprise to, say, Cicero..
 Lametably, this seems to be the accepted usage.
Another one who cannot read or understand?
I think you will find it was Gareth who referred to fora in general.
But, hell, language and its usage changes.
Jeff was quite explicit in his reply that "usenet and a web forum" are
"one and the same". I'm still waiting for a justification of that
I don't know about "... this is it ...", there may be another one out
Forums and picture galleries are an important contribution to the
resources available to model railway enthusiasts. I have usually found
that people who share this interest are helpful and supportive of each
other, sharing knowledge and offering encouragement to fellow
enthusiasts. I was only asking for help in adding, in my own small
way, to these resources.
Thank you anyway
Your justification for there being differences seem to rely on where the
messages are stored and who is responsible for a particular discussion.
Neither of these have any actual bearing on the actual functioning of
the forum, ie the posting of messages and the threading of those
messages, which is basically the same for both web and Usenet based schemes.
You also seem to be unaware that there are such things as moderated
groups on Usenet where messages have to be approved by moderators.
Although thankfully theses are in the minority.
The fact that Usenet messages are not centrally stored is a bonus as it
does not rely on just one site. All of the servers however do back up,
so there is multiple redundancy.
Google Groups has now very much blurred the distinction between web
based forums and Usenet, some Google users not even realising that they
are actually using Usenet!!!
and whether the forum will survive the insolvency, death, or mere loss
of interest of the owner. Fotopic is a recent case in point (though, of
course, not really a forum), Not to mention the illogical and apparently
random banning policies of some owners. Usenet has no owners.
As far as I am concerned, this is a significant difference.
The other is the fragmentation resulting from everyone's desire to start
a web forum - you have to keep track of so many to get to read
everything you want to (even after working out which sites are just
rip-offs of another - and don't even mention the ones who charge for
Fragmentation again - so many subtly different (or even vastly
different) user interfaces!
Especially given the need for an illuminatus-level conspiracy to replace
a moderator who has stopped communicating!
The road to hell is paved with good intentions - Google is presumably
trying to create a single path to everywhere, but so often they make it
worse. Someone should make them all read "MS Fnd in a Lbry".
P.S. Good luck with your new forum!
You're still missing the point. A "web forum" is a specific type of forum.
There are other types of forum which are not web-based. In fact, the mere
existence of the phrase "web forum" implies the existence of forums which
are not web-based, since otherwise it would be a tautology.
As regards these non-web forums, Usenet is most clearly one of them. That
is, it is a place for discussion. The mechanism by which Usenet (or other
non-web forums, such as mailing lists or even bulletin boards, which
predated the web) is accessed and distributed is, of course, different to
that of a web forum, but they serve a similar purpose.
When it comes to caling Usenet a forum, there are two equal and opposite
mistakes which are commonly made. The first, usually made by those who
access Usenet via Google Groups or similar, is to believe that Usenet is a
web forum and hence call it a forum simply because they think it's the same
as all the other forums they use and because they have no concept of
anything other than the web offering access to a forum. The second mistake,
usualy made by those who access Usenet via a newsreader and have
encountered people making the first mistake, is to assume that the word
"forum" always means a web forum in particular rather than the concept of a
forum in general since in their experience that's what people always mean
when they use it. Both are wrong, because Usenet is a forum - but it is not
a web forum.
So, go There is already a forum and this is it, and clearly you thought
so by posting here.
it's pretty clear that he's making neither of these mistakes, since he was
gently mocking the OP by pointing out that this is already a forum in the
most important sense. But then you came along and fell straight into the
trap of assuming that he was making the first mistake, and in your response
to it ended up making the second.
gareth didn't mention web forums. He referred to forums in general. Usenet
is a type of forum. Web forums are a type of forum. The bar in my local is
a type of forum.
The real problem here is that, unlike Usenet, mailing lists, bulletin
boards and other non web-based forums, web-based forums don't seem to have
acquired a name all of their own. Instead, they are usually referred to
just as "web forums" or, more simply, just as "forums". That can be
confusing to people who aren't aware of the wider meaning of the word, but
it's usually a confusion of their own making. There's certainly no excuse
for seeing the word "forum" alone and assuming that the author meant "web
forum" unless that intention is clear from the context.
That sums it up nicely ...
My main problem today is the assumption by many that 'web forums' are better
than 'email and usenet' type lists. I simply don't have the time to 'ring
around' lists that are only 'web based'. If the list traffic is not coming in
through my email client it does not get my attention ... note I say 'list' and I
think that probably reflects my age?