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

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

  1. syipv5cnduziklmcnh3e

    Ken Maltby Guest

    Well it appears that the liberal efforts to boost the "self-esteem" of
    the marginally functional have succeeded, all too well again. Everyone
    else is "too stupid" or uncoordinated or in some other way, not up to
    the exalted intellectual standing of you two. By the way you are both
    able to just skip the "meaningless and inconsequential drop in the
    ocean that is usenet", anytime now (I doubt you well be missed, and
    you seem to believe that it is beneath you.)

    Complaining about GoogleGroups facilitating spammers and noting
    that they have become the home address of the most annoying kooks,
    is an expression of the natural human effort to keep their environment
    safe and clean. Complaining is a healthy social mechanism, in most
    free societies. (House: "Is he Canadian?") You two seem to have no
    problem complaining about our postings, why do you think we shouldn't
    complain about GoogleGroups? Wait, don't answer that, I wouldn't
    want anyone to think I would put any weight into one of your replies.

    Ken Maltby, May 18, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  2. "Ken Maltby" wrote ...
    Ken, he's a troll (although with high self-esteem! :) from one of
    the cross-posted groups. Recommend: trim and/or plonk.
    I've done both and it greatly enhances the SNR.
    Richard Crowley, May 18, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  3. syipv5cnduziklmcnh3e

    Rod Speed Guest

    Nope, not very simple at all to deal with, essentially
    because plenty of non spammers use
    We'll see...
    Or they really are stupid if they cant manage to skip the obvious spam.

    Its not as if the spam doesnt stand out like dogs balls.

    Even you should be able to work out which is spam, if someone was
    actually stupid enough to lend you a seeing eye dog and a white cane.
    Yep. But presumably we dont believe that what
    is currently being discussed falls into that category.
    You in spades.
    Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasys.
    Nothing 'unsafe' about spam in usenet.
    Rather pointless whining about what aint gunna change just because you whine about it.
    Who cares ?
    I havent complained about a damned thing.
    No one said you couldnt. All anyone has ever done is rubbed your nose in the stupidity
    of killfiling all posts from when its so trivial to skip the spam. Corse you
    are always welcome to stop reading newsgroups too any time you like.
    Take your demands and shove them where the sun dont shine.
    You have always been and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.

    What you might or might not claim to put any weight into in spades.
    Dont need luck.
    Rod Speed, May 18, 2008
  4. syipv5cnduziklmcnh3e

    Fred Kasner Guest

    Hey Dr. Teller,
    You should not be posting here. This NG is for the living only. You died
    on 2003 at the age of 95. I know that since I was one of your students
    at the U. of Chicago and follow the careers of all the people I knew there.
    Fred Kasner, May 19, 2008
  5. A more akin analogy would be to ripping out all the sod so you don't have
    to deal with dog shit...

    Mind you, I'm not asking anyone to justify their wholesale killfiling of
    Google Groups posts. I just find it amusing that so many people find
    pride in making the announcement that they've just thrown out the baby
    with the bath water.

    Jacques E. Bouchard, May 19, 2008
  6. Wrangle that knee there, Hopalong Cassidy. I never used the word
    "stupid" in reference to anyone here.
    I do skip posts I find undesirable, every day. I don't quite understand,
    however, how that should somehow marginalize me to a place where I would
    not "be missed".
    Again, please refrain from making this a "us vs. you" issue. I (nor the
    world) am not out to get you, so by all means feel free to resist the
    urge to take the offensive.

    Besides, the issue isn't whether spammers use Google Groups, but whether
    one gains or loses by killfiling all posts originating from Google Groups
    - including the legitimate ones.

    In their effort to justify their actions, a lot of the killfilers have
    attempted to denigrate the "legitimate" posters by making it sound like
    it's their fault, through some flaw of their own, for posting through the
    web service. Personally, I find the practice transparent and childish.
    But I'm not surprised at the mob mentality of usenet.
    Well of course not, because in a simplistic world there is only room for
    one camp being right and one camp being wrong, I've so far failed to
    pledge total allegiance to the killfiling camp.

    Jacques E. Bouchard, May 19, 2008
  7. syipv5cnduziklmcnh3e

    Allen Guest

    Then don't block. Simple. And I don't believe that I've discarded a
    baby, but I've gotten rid of much stuff that is worse than bathwater.
    Allen, May 19, 2008
  8. syipv5cnduziklmcnh3e

    Allen Guest

    By George, I believe that I've found another address to add to my
    killfile. No baby in that bathwater, for sure. Goodbye.
    Allen, May 19, 2008
  9. syipv5cnduziklmcnh3e

    The Real Bev Guest

    Consider the possibility that people who go to the website to access
    usenet probably have nothing to say that we might be interested in.

    This is NOT the same as using a gmail address, but refers only to the
    inclusion of 'googlegroups' in various message headers. It is
    unfortunate that thunderbird does not, as yet, allow killfiling on
    anything but 'subject', 'sender' and 'date', none of which is of any use
    in ridding oneself of the googlegroups users, whether spammers or merely

    "It doesn't get any easier - you just go faster."
    -- Greg Lemond
    The Real Bev, May 19, 2008
  10. syipv5cnduziklmcnh3e

    Rod Speed Guest

    I know that is mindlessly silly because I can see posts from there that arent.
    No one cares what you're stupid enough to want to do so mindlessly.
    Rod Speed, May 19, 2008
  11. syipv5cnduziklmcnh3e

    Larry in AZ Guest

    Waiving the right to remain silent, "Jacques E. Bouchard"
    Not really, as google groups isn't all of the posts.
    No "pride" here. Just following the thread and commenting.
    Larry in AZ, May 19, 2008
  12. syipv5cnduziklmcnh3e

    Larry in AZ Guest

    Waiving the right to remain silent, The Real Bev <bashley101
    > said:
    Switch to Xnews, which does...
    Larry in AZ, May 19, 2008
  13. syipv5cnduziklmcnh3e

    Bill's News Guest

    The version of OE (6.00.2900.5512) used here seems to provide
    for such filtering and way more. Which version are you using,

    I don't mind in the least that I may not see a non-spammer
    posting from google or yahoo. However, a few spammers
    occasionally slip through the filters I've set so far. They are
    seldom worth the time to pattern their behavior to new filters.
    Unless of course they become more irritating.

    If I'm unable to devise a filter, there is always content
    searching before reading the posts available. Which you might
    note, by the 6 days between your post and this reply, in my case
    is sometimes weekly.
    Bill's News, May 19, 2008
  14. syipv5cnduziklmcnh3e

    Bill's News Guest

    Many of my friends in our residential community use low cost
    dial-up to access the net. Several of those use a dial-up
    service which does not provide a news server. I've suggested to
    each of them who wants to access groups, such as this, that they
    use google. In so doing they will also be able to see posts
    and replies made from outside of google as well - but obviously
    not all outside posts and replies. I doubt they miss what's not
    seen any more than I miss not seeing their posts. There are
    possibly no-cost alternatives to using google groups for them,
    but I don't know what they may be.

    There have undoubtedly been absolutely brilliant or entertaining
    or provocative posts made by googlers and other access points
    which I've missed. Some due to filtering, some due to sheer
    volume and unwisely worded subject lines. The day still goes on
    as the earth spins.
    Bill's News, May 19, 2008
  15. syipv5cnduziklmcnh3e

    Guest Guest

    | 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.

    If there were just a few spam posts, skipping them would not be a problem.
    But (some?) spammers are flooding (at least some) newsgroups with so much
    spam that it becomes hard to find legitimate posts. Instead of having a
    screen or two of legitimate threads, I see a flood of many screens of spam.

    It also slows down loading up the threads when changing groups (I read more
    than one group).

    It also drives some people away from Usenet.

    The volume of spam could also be overloading some Usenet NNTP links and
    result in additional delays. If we don't get this under control, it will.

    "Just press D to delete" has never worked for email spam. Why would the
    equivalent work for Usenet?

    Google does have smart content analysis programs that can rather effectively
    detect spam. They use it on INCOMING email. They need to start using it on
    OUTGOING email _and_ on Usenet posts. Even if they used it only on accounts
    that are "new" (in terms of when first being used to send email or do posts,
    not in terms of when registered), it can dramatically reduce the spam. Once
    an account has established a "reputation" over time of NOT spamming, then the
    analysis applied on that account can be reduced and eventually eliminated.

    Google _can_ do these things. If blocking them now gets them to do these
    things, I'd consider it a success.
    Guest, May 20, 2008
  16. syipv5cnduziklmcnh3e

    Guest Guest

    | |
    |> Waiving the right to remain silent, "Jacques E. Bouchard"
    |><> said:
    |>> 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.
    |> 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...
    | A more akin analogy would be to ripping out all the sod so you don't have
    | to deal with dog shit...
    | Mind you, I'm not asking anyone to justify their wholesale killfiling of
    | Google Groups posts. I just find it amusing that so many people find
    | pride in making the announcement that they've just thrown out the baby
    | with the bath water.

    It's in my signature not as a badge of pride, but to inform those who are
    choosing to mix their posts in with the spam why it is their posts may not
    be read. Based on a few emails I've gotten so far asking for help in how
    to do this, it seems at least several people are doing this blocking. My
    only advice to them is to turn it off on occaision to gauge how much of the
    spam continues to flood Usenet.
    Guest, May 20, 2008
  17. syipv5cnduziklmcnh3e

    Guest Guest

    |> Jacques E. Bouchard wrote
    |>> wrote
    |>>> The solution is to put "" in to match against the
    |>>> message ID header, and block everything that comes from there. Most is spam, some is just lame lusers, and the very
    |>>> few smart people that have been using it because they like web interfaces will figure out another place to post
    |>>> from.
    |>> The solution is to learn to skip messages with titles that are obviously spam. You overestimate the incentive for
    |>> Google Groups users to find a news server.
    |> Google has actually done newsgroups a big favor.
    | Nope.
    |> Since Google does nothing about the spam on google groups, most every spammer now uses just google groups.
    | Yes, but so do plenty of non spam posters too.
    |> If you filter all google group postings, you can filter some 99.9% of all the spam on newsgroups.
    | And lose all the non spam posters who choose to post from there too.

    That's why I didn't jump to doing the blocking the first day of the flood.
    But it got worse. A lot worse. And Google was choosing to not apply some
    technology it has to deal with it (e.g. do content analysis on outgoing).
    Guest, May 20, 2008
  18. syipv5cnduziklmcnh3e

    Rod Speed Guest

    It wont, you watch.
    Taint gunna happen that way.
    Rod Speed, May 20, 2008
  19. "Bill's News" wrote ...
    My office machine here is using 6.00.2900.2180 (SP2)
    I'll have to check which version I'm using at home.
    So what exactly is the mechanism?

    2180 won't block arbitrary email addresses
    It also won't block wild-card email addresses
    It also doesn't provide for filtering on most
    header info.
    Richard Crowley, May 21, 2008
  20. "Bill's News" wrote ...
    I'm certain that there are precious gems and valuable metals
    (gold, etc.) that end up in the landfill every day, also. But I
    don't see many (any?) people out there digging through the
    muck on the chance they will strike gold.
    Richard Crowley, May 21, 2008
    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.