Camcorder Hard Drive - Find Tips - SALES on Camcorders all BrandNames

Discussion in 'Professional Video Production' started by syipv5cnduziklmcnh3e, May 8, 2008.

  1. syipv5cnduziklmcnh3e

    Rod Speed Guest

    Different matter entirely to being able to POST from groups google, what is being discussed.
    What I said in different words.
    No it doesnt.
    Depends entirely on the specifics of what they do.

    If they actually did something about those who post spam using their
    service, what you want wouldnt be lost and would be improved by
    attracting those who wouldnt otherwise even be aware that usenet exists.

    And its perfectly possible for google to work out what is spam too.
    Or they can tell fools like that one that his approach is terminally stupid.
    You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.
    Then you need to get your seems machinery seen to.

    The volume is WAY down on what it used to be for starters.
    Nope, and its trivial to use groups.google to prove that.
    Nope, and its trivial to use groups.google to prove that.
    You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.

    In spades when you cant even manage to work out which non spam posts are done from there.
     
    Rod Speed, May 14, 2008
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. syipv5cnduziklmcnh3e

    Rod Speed Guest

    Wrong, as always.
    Wrong, as always.
     
    Rod Speed, May 14, 2008
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. I mainly use google groups to catch up on people who may have replied
    to my posts in groups that I do not check that often.
    It is also a source of amusement when someone makes a claim and
    later denies making that claim. When the link to the original claim is
    posted they tend to depart the thread.
     
    George Grapman, May 14, 2008
    #23
  4. Sure it does. And Google's lack of attention is precisely what
    is causing the problem under discussion right now.
    Which in Google's case, appears to be nothing.
    And by their own admission, so it isn't just anecdotal
    or circumstantial evidence.
    "those who wouldn't otherwise even be aware that usenet exists"
    rarely post anything really useful. Not on the NGs that I read.
    And I'm not even talking about the spam messages.
    Sure it is. But it costs $$$$ to hire people to use their judgement
    to decide who the abusers are and how to block them. Google
    doesn't want to do that, so we all suffer from their neglect and/or
    apathy. That is the problem in a nutshell.
    Without an actual example, it is just a word.
    I never claimed otherwise, but thanks for noticing. :)
    Then I KNOW you are talking about different newsgroups
    than I am. I only read less than a dozen newsgroups and
    frequently the daily volume is too great to read everything.

    It is also springtime here in the northern hemisphere and
    more people are doing things outdoors which contributes
    to a slight seasonal drop in online traffic. But perhaps you
    haven't been using Usenet long enough to notice that.
    Now you're just repeating yourself.

    You might have better credibility youself if you weren't claiming a
    gmail return address. GoogleGroups and Gmail are the prime
    sources of current Usenet spam. More people are blocking
    anything from GoogleGroups and/or from people with gmail
    addresses. FYI
     
    Richard Crowley, May 14, 2008
    #24
  5. You appear to be refereing to the Archives functionality
    which pre-dated Google's online web-based posting
    mechanisms.
     
    Richard Crowley, May 14, 2008
    #25
  6. syipv5cnduziklmcnh3e

    Rod Speed Guest

    Nothing like what you said previously.
    Yes, but it isnt the only thing they could have done.

    So your crap about big corporate players is just that, mindlessly silly crap.
    Irrelevant to whether your crap about big corporate players is just that, mindlessly silly crap.
    Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.

    In spades with those who come across usenet because of
    google and who then contribute to usenet just like the others
    have done who have discovered usenet some other way.
    Then you need to get out more.
    Nope, its perfectly feasible to automate the detection of the worst of it.
    Because of the inevitable cost of that stupid approach.
    But it doesnt have to always be a problem, in spite of your stupid claim.
    Its also a fact.
    Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
    Only if your lips move when you read.

    And irrelevant to your stupid claim about whats happened since its heyday anyway.
    Been using it since LONG before you ever have thanks.
    It sometimes helps with pig ignorant fools like you.
    Nope. I use it here just because its spam filtering is much better than the
    other free alternatives and I prefer not to fart around with munging the address.
    Irrelevant to whether its useful in that particular situation.
    Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.

    And even someone as stupid as you should be able to see who does reply to my posts.
    GTE
     
    Rod Speed, May 14, 2008
    #26
  7. Correct. What used to be dejanews. At that time you posted a message
    with your email address and then,like craigslist, they sent you a
    confirmation before it was posted.
     
    George Grapman, May 14, 2008
    #27
  8. Interesting discussion. Since I am posting from Google Groups, I
    guess some won't
    see this reply. Nice to know that what I have to say is not important
    because of the
    technology I choose to use.
     
    EdwardATeller, May 18, 2008
    #28
  9. syipv5cnduziklmcnh3e

    Ken Maltby Guest

    What you have to say may not be heard because you
    chose to use the same means as so many of the more
    noxious posters. People are avoiding the din of the
    crazies and those hawking wares and self-aggrandizement.
    If you choose to come to the NewsGroups through the
    same means as the things that people are avoiding; you
    should expect to be cut off when that means is cut off.

    While I still keep track of all the postings, I find that
    most of the GoogleGroups Spam is easy to spot and
    my delete button works well. Also, it makes it easier
    to notice and follow threads like this. I try to avoid
    posting to these threads though, as it can be a way to
    propagate them around the anti GoogleGroup filters.

    There are a number of other ways to post to the
    News Groups, you need not use Google's service
    with its mass News Group posting features.

    Luck;
    Ken
     
    Ken Maltby, May 18, 2008
    #29
  10. syipv5cnduziklmcnh3e

    Paul Guest

    news.aioe.org - no registration needed. Limited number of text posts per day.
    news.motzarella.org - register to use. I used a gmail account for an
    email address for registration. Account and password
    authenticate the connection of the news reader software
    to the site.

    AIOE was inoperative for a few days, due to a DNS problem, but is now
    up and running again. I use Thunderbird (mozilla.org) for posting to
    these servers. For Motzarella, I have to tick the "authenticate" box
    in the properties for the connection to the server.

    HTH,
    Paul
     
    Paul, May 18, 2008
    #30
  11. syipv5cnduziklmcnh3e

    Hal Murray Guest

    It's a simple signal-to-noise problem.

    The technology you chose is indistinguishable from that
    which many spammers use.

    Why are you surprised when people consider what you have to
    say not important enough to dig out of the spammer infested trash?
     
    Hal Murray, May 18, 2008
    #31
  12. It could be worse. You could be using AOL, in which case some people would
    be paralyzed by shock and conniptions and would no doubt invoke the
    Natiojnal Guard to restore order to usenet.

    Me, I just think it's ironinc that people using Outlook Express for news
    would try to pull any elitist routine, seeing how their choice of news
    reader would put them slightly below AOl in the usenet food chain according
    to the die-hard denizens.


    jaybee
     
    Jacques E. Bouchard, May 18, 2008
    #32
  13. (Hal Murray) wrote in
    But the headers are not.
    I still don't understand why so many people seemingly find the task of
    SKIPPING undesirable posts so damn challenging. Maybe they're chewing gum
    at the same time and can't muster the concentration. Or maybe it's the
    way some people have of making a big show of killfiling, as if to give
    some meaning to their otherwise meaningless and inconsequential drop in
    the ocean that is usenet.


    jaybee
     
    Jacques E. Bouchard, May 18, 2008
    #33
  14. syipv5cnduziklmcnh3e

    clams_casino Guest

    Actually, it's what most all spammers use.

    99.99978656% of all googlegroup newsgroup postings = spam. Filter those
    & essentially all newsgroup spam disappears.
     
    clams_casino, May 18, 2008
    #34
  15. Simply a matter of volume: finding 10 meaningful and interesting posts
    in 100 is much more cumbersome then finding 10 meaningful and
    interesting posts in 20 after you filtered out the 80% of spam.

    jue
     
    Jürgen Exner, May 18, 2008
    #35
  16. syipv5cnduziklmcnh3e

    Larry in AZ Guest

    Waiving the right to remain silent, "Jacques E. Bouchard"
    Let's see if I can explain it with an analogy...

    I don't want to have to step around the neighbor's dog shit in my yard. I
    want to keep his dog out of my yard.

    Therefore, I filter out all newsgroup posts from google groups...
     
    Larry in AZ, May 18, 2008
    #36
  17. syipv5cnduziklmcnh3e

    Rod Speed Guest

    They dont, its more that they're too stupid to do the obvious.
    Its more that they're too stupid to do the obvious.
     
    Rod Speed, May 18, 2008
    #37
  18. syipv5cnduziklmcnh3e

    Rod Speed Guest

    Those numbers are completely bogus with most newsgroups.

    Its closer to the reverse numbers with most newsgroups.
     
    Rod Speed, May 18, 2008
    #38
  19. syipv5cnduziklmcnh3e

    Ken Maltby Guest

    This may indicate more about the newsgroups you frequent and
    the type of post you consider "meaningful", than any reflection on
    the state of the usenet. 80% seems low, if we are still talking about
    GoogleGroups; from my experience. (Of course, I'm including the
    nut cases as well as the spammers.)

    Luck;
    Ken
     
    Ken Maltby, May 18, 2008
    #39
  20. syipv5cnduziklmcnh3e

    Rod Speed Guest

    Nope, none have numbers anything like his numbers.
    I wasnt commenting on that number, just the number of spam posts.

    I could have said that more carefully.
    I wouldnt even try to comment on the percentage of 'meaningful'
    posts, because that varys so much with the reader and its interests.
     
    Rod Speed, May 18, 2008
    #40
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.