In "John Smith" writes:

commander:

Furnish me with a URL to a document by usenet on the false specs you are
attempting to pass off on the un-witting hams, and others, here. Where is a
usenet "Official Faq" stating what you are claiming?


Try any of the following:


http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...1d33dcfe1ff321

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/finding-groups/general/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsgroups

http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/nobin.html


Even if you don't want to accept any of these articles as authoritative,
consider the validity of their basic arguments, which I've summarized
below:


- Many sites choose to carry only the discussion newsgroups, as the
binary newsgroups represent the overwhelming majority of Usenet
traffic volume (by an astonishing ratio of 300:1 as of 2002, according
to the first article referenced above).

- Sites can easily limit their news traffic to the much smaller
discussion newsgroups volume if binaries are restricted by convention
to newsgroups that have "binaries" in their names.

- Even if one poster posts "just one little binary" in a discussion
newsgroup, it can add up if others join in, especially multiplied over
many newsgroups (see "Tragedy of the Commons" at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons ).

- If this results in very little meaningful distinction in traffic
volume between discussion and binary newsgroups, such that sites that
carry news can no longer easily filter out the binary material, and
keep their bandwidth and storage requirements to a manageable amount,
many sites may choose to drop many discussion newsgroups, or even drop
news altogether. The latter has already happened at many sites,
including AOL, MSN, and Comcast.

- Sites with more sophisticated filtering than that provided by standard
news server software may choose to filter out all posts that have
binary content, anyway. Already, Google Groups strips out any binary
contents from their newsgroups archive, mostly to avoid becoming a
de-facto free porno/pirated-warez server. Even a site like Google,
with nearly unlimited communications bandwidth and storage space, is
concerned about becoming a transmission vector for copyright
violations, viruses, and obscene material.

- It may even be a violation of your ISP's Terms of Service (TOS) or
Acceptable Usage Policy (AUP) to post binaries to a discussion
newsgroup.

--
73, Paul W. Schleck, K3FU

http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/
Finger for PGP Public Key

Paul:

google groups are simply not acceptable, wikipedia is not acceptable...

.... the other two simply recommend using common sense ... DUH!!!

Sometime around the mid-late 90's myths began to float about, we live in a
"echo chamber" and simply because these myths come echoing back in force is
only proof that some where successful in generating belief in the myths, are in
a remarkable number of people...

Attempting to limit the internet is insane... this has been and will remain a
more powerful medium of exchange than many can accept, big deal...

Some dreamed of passing binaries back and forth here, worked and developed
methods--for some strange reason--others came later attempting to halt it. I
admit this insanity is hard to understand--I simply note it exists... I don't
even care what the reason are, or the arguments of the "control freaks" consist
of...

Google groups? NO ONE SHOULD EVEN BE USING GOOGLE GROUPS!!!!

John

"Paul W. Schleck" wrote in message
...
In "John Smith"
writes:

commander:

Furnish me with a URL to a document by usenet on the false specs you are
attempting to pass off on the un-witting hams, and others, here. Where is a
usenet "Official Faq" stating what you are claiming?


Try any of the following:


http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...1d33dcfe1ff321

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/finding-groups/general/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsgroups

http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/nobin.html


Even if you don't want to accept any of these articles as authoritative,
consider the validity of their basic arguments, which I've summarized
below:


- Many sites choose to carry only the discussion newsgroups, as the
binary newsgroups represent the overwhelming majority of Usenet
traffic volume (by an astonishing ratio of 300:1 as of 2002, according
to the first article referenced above).

- Sites can easily limit their news traffic to the much smaller
discussion newsgroups volume if binaries are restricted by convention
to newsgroups that have "binaries" in their names.

- Even if one poster posts "just one little binary" in a discussion
newsgroup, it can add up if others join in, especially multiplied over
many newsgroups (see "Tragedy of the Commons" at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons ).

- If this results in very little meaningful distinction in traffic
volume between discussion and binary newsgroups, such that sites that
carry news can no longer easily filter out the binary material, and
keep their bandwidth and storage requirements to a manageable amount,
many sites may choose to drop many discussion newsgroups, or even drop
news altogether. The latter has already happened at many sites,
including AOL, MSN, and Comcast.

- Sites with more sophisticated filtering than that provided by standard
news server software may choose to filter out all posts that have
binary content, anyway. Already, Google Groups strips out any binary
contents from their newsgroups archive, mostly to avoid becoming a
de-facto free porno/pirated-warez server. Even a site like Google,
with nearly unlimited communications bandwidth and storage space, is
concerned about becoming a transmission vector for copyright
violations, viruses, and obscene material.

- It may even be a violation of your ISP's Terms of Service (TOS) or
Acceptable Usage Policy (AUP) to post binaries to a discussion
newsgroup.

--
73, Paul W. Schleck, K3FU

http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/
Finger for PGP Public Key

Paul:

But don't panic, I may be the only one capable of uuencoding a binary and
posting it, ya never know, well, except the one guy who already managed it
somehow...

John

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
Paul:

google groups are simply not acceptable, wikipedia is not acceptable...

... the other two simply recommend using common sense ... DUH!!!

Sometime around the mid-late 90's myths began to float about, we live in a
"echo chamber" and simply because these myths come echoing back in force is
only proof that some where successful in generating belief in the myths, are
in a remarkable number of people...

Attempting to limit the internet is insane... this has been and will remain a
more powerful medium of exchange than many can accept, big deal...

Some dreamed of passing binaries back and forth here, worked and developed
methods--for some strange reason--others came later attempting to halt it. I
admit this insanity is hard to understand--I simply note it exists... I don't
even care what the reason are, or the arguments of the "control freaks"
consist of...

Google groups? NO ONE SHOULD EVEN BE USING GOOGLE GROUPS!!!!

John

"Paul W. Schleck" wrote in message
...
In "John Smith"
writes:

commander:

Furnish me with a URL to a document by usenet on the false specs you are
attempting to pass off on the un-witting hams, and others, here. Where is a
usenet "Official Faq" stating what you are claiming?


Try any of the following:


http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...1d33dcfe1ff321

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/finding-groups/general/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsgroups

http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/nobin.html


Even if you don't want to accept any of these articles as authoritative,
consider the validity of their basic arguments, which I've summarized
below:


- Many sites choose to carry only the discussion newsgroups, as the
binary newsgroups represent the overwhelming majority of Usenet
traffic volume (by an astonishing ratio of 300:1 as of 2002, according
to the first article referenced above).

- Sites can easily limit their news traffic to the much smaller
discussion newsgroups volume if binaries are restricted by convention
to newsgroups that have "binaries" in their names.

- Even if one poster posts "just one little binary" in a discussion
newsgroup, it can add up if others join in, especially multiplied over
many newsgroups (see "Tragedy of the Commons" at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons ).

- If this results in very little meaningful distinction in traffic
volume between discussion and binary newsgroups, such that sites that
carry news can no longer easily filter out the binary material, and
keep their bandwidth and storage requirements to a manageable amount,
many sites may choose to drop many discussion newsgroups, or even drop
news altogether. The latter has already happened at many sites,
including AOL, MSN, and Comcast.

- Sites with more sophisticated filtering than that provided by standard
news server software may choose to filter out all posts that have
binary content, anyway. Already, Google Groups strips out any binary
contents from their newsgroups archive, mostly to avoid becoming a
de-facto free porno/pirated-warez server. Even a site like Google,
with nearly unlimited communications bandwidth and storage space, is
concerned about becoming a transmission vector for copyright
violations, viruses, and obscene material.

- It may even be a violation of your ISP's Terms of Service (TOS) or
Acceptable Usage Policy (AUP) to post binaries to a discussion
newsgroup.

--
73, Paul W. Schleck, K3FU

http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/
Finger for PGP Public Key

Lloyd:

I still don't see where any "usenet authorities" positions have been brought to
this debate, other than the suggestion binaries be kept reasonable--except in
those threads which are "mostly binary only" (however, I think those are mostly
pervert/pedophile threads!)

Indeed, if "usenet authorities" are here, they are only in your mind...

.... you nitwit, reference this message to any group you like...
SILLY GIRLY-MAN!

ROFLOL!!!!!

John

"Lloyd" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 15:24:47 -0700, John Smith
wrote:
Paul:

google groups are simply not acceptable, wikipedia is not acceptable...

... the other two simply recommend using common sense ... DUH!!!
***STOMP***

this guy is just a troll so dont pay attention to what he says Paul.
if he really thinks he knows more than all those use net autorities,
he is the fool he calls other people. but he is a troll and he is a
bad one. he should be kill filed which is what I have just done to
his sacramento ass. I will pray for his hellbound soul anyway becuase
I think thats what Jesus would do.

The rules to Newsgroups vary from newsgroup to newsgroup, the problem
with this group (rec.radio.amateur.policy) is that it'snot monerated,
or it is and the monerator isn't doing there job.
unless it is a discussion group rule, again the rules vary from
discussion group to discussion group then it alright.

Todd N9OGL
Monerator
Amateur-Radio-Experimentation

Discussion Group

N9OGL wrote:
The rules to Newsgroups vary from newsgroup to newsgroup, the problem
with this group (rec.radio.amateur.policy) is that it'snot monerated,
or it is and the monerator isn't doing there job.
unless it is a discussion group rule, again the rules vary from
discussion group to discussion group then it alright.

Todd N9OGL

Toad, what's a "Monerator", STUPID!?!

Allow me to try an translate this into English.

wrote:
N9OGL wrote:
The rules to Newsgroups vary from newsgroup to newsgroup...(SNIP)

The rules and protocols for posting vary from newsgroup to
newsgroup.

(UNSNIP)...the problem
with this group (rec.radio.amateur.policy) is that it'snot monerated,
or it is and the monerator isn't doing there job.

Rec.radio.amateur.policy is not a moderated newsgroup. There is
no moderator to ensure compliance with discussion group parameters or
maintain civility amongst participants.

unless it is a discussion group rule, again the rules vary from
discussion group to discussion group then it alright.

He's got me there. I am sure there was a "point" there, but most
likely just the top of his head.

Todd N9OGL

Toad, what's a "Monerator", STUPID!?!

We need to get him and Markie to start submitting their made-up
words to Webster's for deciphering.

I still think Toiddie has a good case against the Taylorville
Public Schools for letting him graduate High School with those horrific
English skills. And Markie's always looking to sue SOMEone...He ought
to go after the school district that let HIM loose.

73

Steve, K4YZ

N9OGL:

Well, there ya go, trouble is, when you give control to an incompetent he is
going to focus on control and being a disciplinarian, any real merit is lost.
Any successful group must be flexible to the majority's rule, as only if the
group is responsive and meets the needs of those is it valid--problems with a
"control freak" moderator are the same--most newsgroups with such do not
survive--about as many posting as QSO's on HF, they begin dying--moderated
newsgroups.

Only reason I don't send binaries, pics etc in moderation here, no one
intelligent to uudecode them (also, there has just not been a need), that is
obvious and really what the center of most problems we are speaking of--control
freaks managing to having halted progress...

John

"N9OGL" wrote in message
oups.com...
The rules to Newsgroups vary from newsgroup to newsgroup, the problem
with this group (rec.radio.amateur.policy) is that it'snot monerated,
or it is and the monerator isn't doing there job.
unless it is a discussion group rule, again the rules vary from
discussion group to discussion group then it alright.

Todd N9OGL
Monerator
Amateur-Radio-Experimentation

Discussion Group

K4YZ wrote:
Allow me to try an translate this into English.

wrote:
N9OGL wrote:
The rules to Newsgroups vary from newsgroup to newsgroup...(SNIP)

The rules and protocols for posting vary from newsgroup to
newsgroup.

(UNSNIP)...the problem
with this group (rec.radio.amateur.policy) is that it'snot monerated,
or it is and the monerator isn't doing there job.


break

Rec.radio.amateur.policy is not a moderated newsgroup. There is
no moderator to ensure compliance with discussion group parameters or
maintain civility amongst participants.

then why do you seek to ursurb that role?

Why do you sepnd so much time trying to force other to folow YOUR ideas
of how this group should function


unless it is a discussion group rule, again the rules vary from
discussion group to discussion group then it alright.

He's got me there. I am sure there was a "point" there, but most
likely just the top of his head.

Todd N9OGL

Toad, what's a "Monerator", STUPID!?!

We need to get him and Markie to start submitting their made-up
words to Webster's for deciphering.

I still think Toiddie has a good case against the Taylorville
Public Schools for letting him graduate High School with those horrific
English skills. And Markie's always looking to sue SOMEone...He ought
to go after the school district that let HIM loose.

now libeling an entire school system Stevie

and making up more stuff about me

Never looking to sue anyone, not even you, althoughyou do insist on
straining that one

but then Your HS let you out without even teaching you to read,
properly

(BTW reading is about working what is there not about how you can twist
it to mean what you want it to)

73

Steve, K4YZ

John Smith wrote:
N9OGL:

Well, there ya go, trouble is, when you give control to an incompetent he is
going to focus on control and being a disciplinarian, any real merit is lost.
Any successful group must be flexible to the majority's rule, as only if the
group is responsive and meets the needs of those is it valid--problems with a
"control freak" moderator are the same--most newsgroups with such do not
survive--about as many posting as QSO's on HF, they begin dying--moderated
newsgroups.

Only reason I don't send binaries, pics etc in moderation here, no one
intelligent to uudecode them (also, there has just not been a need), that is
obvious and really what the center of most problems we are speaking of--control
freaks managing to having halted progress...

I take issue with that I could decode them still know where a copy of
that stuff is

John

"N9OGL" wrote in message
oups.com...
The rules to Newsgroups vary from newsgroup to newsgroup, the problem
with this group (rec.radio.amateur.policy) is that it'snot monerated,
or it is and the monerator isn't doing there job.
unless it is a discussion group rule, again the rules vary from
discussion group to discussion group then it alright.

Todd N9OGL
Monerator
Amateur-Radio-Experimentation

Discussion Group