novaBBS - alt.arts.poetry.comments - Re: Google ending support for Usenet

Family Guy <madeforzyngagames@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:9fe1ca10-66b5-4f86-a99b-130e5147c308n@googlegroups.com:

> On Tuesday, December 26, 2023 at 6:43:49 PM UTC-5, Cujo DeSockpuppet
> wrote:
>> Peter J Ross <p...@example.invalid> wrote in
>> news:slrnuomls...@nntp.pjross.me:
>> > On 2023-12-24, W.Dockery <will.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I managed to publish a book of poetry
>> >
>> > Even Ed Wollmann has sold more copies of his books than you.
>> Not fair, Ed used to call stores as someone else and ask them to
>> order the book. I believe he also had Marsha Kalfsbeek and a few
>> other F'losers like Little Brucie Kettler doing the same thing.
>
> That's a very bullshit move.
> How would he sell them, anyway?
> Have his cronies go in and buy it for him?

It happened a little before I started laughing at Edmo but I think the
idea was to boost "sales" and get some exposure at book stores. You know
we are dealing with a world class kook, right?

They would end up getting remaindered anyway. When I looked a few years
after the book came out the San Diego public libraries had something
like 15 copies. I couldn't get past the first few pages. It's that bad.

At one point he bullied the Amazon reviews pages into only keeping the 5
star reviews, many of them were Edmo's sockpuppets.
https://www.amazon.com/Integrated-Astrological-Guide-Self-Empowerment-ebo
ok/product-reviews/B077CB19BM/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_show_all_btm?ie=UTF8&reviewe
rType=all_reviews

At one point I gave an over the top 5 star review that lasted for months
until someone told him it was actually a bad review.

>> All Will had were a few imbecilic henchmorons and a daughter who was
>> forced to work at a bait store in Shitkicker, Alabama. As Dunce had
>> something to do with it, you can't count out the Canuckistan market.
>> I'll bet they sold one or two in the remainder queues.

Here you go:

"Edmo had every rewiew critical of his book on Amazon censored. It's
full of plagiarism, delusions and outright stupidity with tons of
ridiculous phrases and blatant grammatical errors. Here's a repost of
the ones that used to be on www.fatbrain.com before they figured out he
wasn't worth the disk space to host any ads for that piece of crap.

************************

submitted this review on 8/13/00
Skill Level: All Levels, Rating:
Mr Wollmann has published a book that can only be called the greatest
waste of trees in the modern world.
His book is filled with gross errors, misrepresentation and lies. Mr
Wollmann has attempted to blend several new age concepts with the
ancient art of astrology and failed utterly and completely. He also
needs to hire a 1st class proof reader to correct the many spelling and
grammar errors. One person I shared my copy of the book found 12 errors
on the back cover alone. She had to resist using her red pencil, stating
her 7th grade english students had greater writing ability than Wollmann
has.

submitted this review on 8/12/00Skill Level: All Levels, Rating:
A literary "plan 9 from outer space".
Destined to become a cult classic as "the worst book ever written", this
so-called book makes other self-published rants by insane people look
good by comparison. Here is why:

1). Kooky beliefs: There seems to be nothing Mr. Wollman does NOT
believe in. Except for astrology he also believes in ancient astronauts,
the Rosewell UFO crash, reincarnation, pyramidology, JFK assassination
conspiracies, men in black, the "philadelphia experiment", Altantis, and
more. He keeps using one fringe idea to support another : Rosewell
"proves" astrology is accuate, reincarnated spirits provide "eyewitness
testimony" that Atlantis was real, etc. (Reminds one of the old joke of
"proving" your stray dog is worth $10,000 because you gave two $5000-
dollar alley cats for it.)

2). Kooky mistakes: Mr. Wollman's grasp of *actual* facts, on the other
hand, is very flimsy. He makes elementary factual mistakes in virtually
EVERY PAGE of his book. A *very* partial list of what Mr. Wollman thinks
is true: Orion is a star; tau ceti is in taurus; the Pyramids of Gaza
are tetrahedron-shaped; the star Altair supports life; DNA looks "just
like a galaxy", go figure. Needless to say, Mr. Wollman believes he
knows more science that "all of you spinics [a Wollman-word meaning
"critic" and "spin-artist" combined."]

3). Kooky language: Mr. Wollman's book is the only one I know of which
has spelling and grammar mistakes on the BACK COVER BLURB, which gives
one an idea of how "carefully edited" this book is. As for style, Mr.
Wollman sounds like an informercial: Always obsfucate with meaningless
"big words". Why say "explains" when you can say "provides a
psychological understanding"? Why say "this book has an index" when you
can say it "contains a complete delineation guide in self-empowerment
terms"? It is virtually impossible to read one paragraph in Wollman's
book without either falling asleep of bursting out laughing.
Incidentally, Mr. Wollman is PROUD of the fact that his writings are
unreadable: he proudly proclaimed that he "got phone calls from many
readers who read my book and were baffled." Take THAT, #@#$!! critics!

4). Kooky indexes: This book has *13* indexes - one at the end of each
chapter, and a re-printing of all of them, one after another, as the
"index" at the end of the book. These indexes are the most hilarious bit
of kookery I have ever seen. They are only *approximately* in
alphabetical order (entries such as "the square" are listed in the index
under 't' for 'the' - reminds me of the Gary Larson cartoon book index
where all the cartoons were listed under 't' as "the one about the...").
They lack entries for most of the terms that are mentioned in the
chapter they supposedly "index", but include entries for words like
"the", "a", "3" and so on. (My favorite is the index for ch. 2, which
has the helpful entry "index" - which refers you to itself!) When you
actually *find* a term in this chenobyl of an "index", it *almost always
refers you to the wrong page*. See how long it takes you to find the
word "asteroid" in the text using the "helpful" page numbers given in
the index for Ch. 2, for example. Have a drink; it's going to take a
while...

5). Kooky criticisms: When Mr. Wollman was criticized about his
"book" on the internet, he became very agressive. He complained to
people's ISPs for "abusing" him (the ISP's put him in their killfiles
and laughed at him, despite his claims of "killing hundreds of accounts"
and "reporting [x] to the FBI.") He threatened to sue people for
"libeling" him and causing him "financial damage" (apprently Mr. Wollman
thinks that any negative criticism is "libel." Of course, he never sued
or will sue anyone.) He complained to amazon.com for allowing people to
post "fake" (=critical) reviews of his book. Whatever you do... if you
call Wollmann about his book, you better praise it, or he will get wewy,
wewy angwy with you.

6). Damnation by fake praise: to outdo this
"damage" the "spinics" (=critics) caused his book, (which had
nevertheless soared to the 480,000+ place on amazon.com's best-seller
list) Mr. Wollman flooded the internet book stores with made-up
"five-star" reviews of his book. Their style immediately shows that the
"amazed" reader is no other than Mr. Wollmann, but it is interesting to
look at the kind of praise he gave himself. For example, on amazon.com a
"reader" claimed Wollman's book is "better than the bible and mein
kampf" (sic!). Another "reader" claimed this book "makes losers into
winners", since he "gave Mr. Wollman's book to my little-league
ice-hockey team to read" and they improved their record. Yet another
"reader" claims that "if he only had Mr. Wollman's book 20 years ago"
the cold war would have been won long before it actually was (maybe, but
who would have won?) It all sounds SO reasonable; what's not to believe?

In conclusion, it all depends. As a "straight" book, it is a total and
umitigated failure. As a unintentional "joke" book... it is hilarious. I
actually made a few new friends reading Mr. Wollman's book in
Barnes&Noble once - I was laughing so hard people had to ask me what on
earth I was reading. Soon quite a few of the people in the store were
trying to top each other in finding the funniest overblown nonesense
they could in the book...

submitted this review on 8/11/00Skill Level: All Levels, Rating:
Gibberish, total meaningless prattle. A real waste of one tree, because
I cannot imagine too many people getting duped into buying this lousy
book unless it's for the unintentional "laugh factor". The so-called
author should give his head a shake. Then bury it, along with this awful
book.

Click here to read the complete article

On Wednesday, December 27, 2023 at 4:54:35 PM UTC-5, Cujo DeSockpuppet wrote:
> Family Guy <madeforz...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:9fe1ca10-66b5-4f86...@googlegroups.com:
> > On Tuesday, December 26, 2023 at 6:43:49 PM UTC-5, Cujo DeSockpuppet
> > wrote:
> >> Peter J Ross <p...@example.invalid> wrote in
> >> news:slrnuomls...@nntp.pjross.me:
> >> > On 2023-12-24, W.Dockery <will.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I managed to publish a book of poetry
> >> >
> >> > Even Ed Wollmann has sold more copies of his books than you.
> >> Not fair, Ed used to call stores as someone else and ask them to
> >> order the book. I believe he also had Marsha Kalfsbeek and a few
> >> other F'losers like Little Brucie Kettler doing the same thing.
> >
> > That's a very bullshit move.
> > How would he sell them, anyway?
> > Have his cronies go in and buy it for him?
> It happened a little before I started laughing at Edmo but I think the
> idea was to boost "sales" and get some exposure at book stores. You know
> we are dealing with a world class kook, right?
>
> They would end up getting remaindered anyway. When I looked a few years
> after the book came out the San Diego public libraries had something
> like 15 copies. I couldn't get past the first few pages. It's that bad.
>
> At one point he bullied the Amazon reviews pages into only keeping the 5
> star reviews, many of them were Edmo's sockpuppets.
> https://www.amazon.com/Integrated-Astrological-Guide-Self-Empowerment-ebo
> ok/product-reviews/B077CB19BM/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_show_all_btm?ie=UTF8&reviewe
> rType=all_reviews
>
> At one point I gave an over the top 5 star review that lasted for months
> until someone told him it was actually a bad review.
> >> All Will had were a few imbecilic henchmorons and a daughter who was
> >> forced to work at a bait store in Shitkicker, Alabama. As Dunce had
> >> something to do with it, you can't count out the Canuckistan market.
> >> I'll bet they sold one or two in the remainder queues.
> Here you go:
>
> "Edmo had every rewiew critical of his book on Amazon censored. It's
> full of plagiarism, delusions and outright stupidity with tons of
> ridiculous phrases and blatant grammatical errors. Here's a repost of
> the ones that used to be on www.fatbrain.com before they figured out he
> wasn't worth the disk space to host any ads for that piece of crap.
>
> ************************
>
> submitted this review on 8/13/00
> Skill Level: All Levels, Rating:
> Mr Wollmann has published a book that can only be called the greatest
> waste of trees in the modern world.
> His book is filled with gross errors, misrepresentation and lies. Mr
> Wollmann has attempted to blend several new age concepts with the
> ancient art of astrology and failed utterly and completely. He also
> needs to hire a 1st class proof reader to correct the many spelling and
> grammar errors. One person I shared my copy of the book found 12 errors
> on the back cover alone. She had to resist using her red pencil, stating
> her 7th grade english students had greater writing ability than Wollmann
> has.
>
> submitted this review on 8/12/00Skill Level: All Levels, Rating:
> A literary "plan 9 from outer space".
> Destined to become a cult classic as "the worst book ever written", this
> so-called book makes other self-published rants by insane people look
> good by comparison. Here is why:
>
> 1). Kooky beliefs: There seems to be nothing Mr. Wollman does NOT
> believe in. Except for astrology he also believes in ancient astronauts,
> the Rosewell UFO crash, reincarnation, pyramidology, JFK assassination
> conspiracies, men in black, the "philadelphia experiment", Altantis, and
> more. He keeps using one fringe idea to support another : Rosewell
> "proves" astrology is accuate, reincarnated spirits provide "eyewitness
> testimony" that Atlantis was real, etc. (Reminds one of the old joke of
> "proving" your stray dog is worth $10,000 because you gave two $5000-
> dollar alley cats for it.)
>
> 2). Kooky mistakes: Mr. Wollman's grasp of *actual* facts, on the other
> hand, is very flimsy. He makes elementary factual mistakes in virtually
> EVERY PAGE of his book. A *very* partial list of what Mr. Wollman thinks
> is true: Orion is a star; tau ceti is in taurus; the Pyramids of Gaza
> are tetrahedron-shaped; the star Altair supports life; DNA looks "just
> like a galaxy", go figure. Needless to say, Mr. Wollman believes he
> knows more science that "all of you spinics [a Wollman-word meaning
> "critic" and "spin-artist" combined."]
>
> 3). Kooky language: Mr. Wollman's book is the only one I know of which
> has spelling and grammar mistakes on the BACK COVER BLURB, which gives
> one an idea of how "carefully edited" this book is. As for style, Mr.
> Wollman sounds like an informercial: Always obsfucate with meaningless
> "big words". Why say "explains" when you can say "provides a
> psychological understanding"? Why say "this book has an index" when you
> can say it "contains a complete delineation guide in self-empowerment
> terms"? It is virtually impossible to read one paragraph in Wollman's
> book without either falling asleep of bursting out laughing.
> Incidentally, Mr. Wollman is PROUD of the fact that his writings are
> unreadable: he proudly proclaimed that he "got phone calls from many
> readers who read my book and were baffled." Take THAT, #@#$!! critics!
>
> 4). Kooky indexes: This book has *13* indexes - one at the end of each
> chapter, and a re-printing of all of them, one after another, as the
> "index" at the end of the book. These indexes are the most hilarious bit
> of kookery I have ever seen. They are only *approximately* in
> alphabetical order (entries such as "the square" are listed in the index
> under 't' for 'the' - reminds me of the Gary Larson cartoon book index
> where all the cartoons were listed under 't' as "the one about the...").
> They lack entries for most of the terms that are mentioned in the
> chapter they supposedly "index", but include entries for words like
> "the", "a", "3" and so on. (My favorite is the index for ch. 2, which
> has the helpful entry "index" - which refers you to itself!) When you
> actually *find* a term in this chenobyl of an "index", it *almost always
> refers you to the wrong page*. See how long it takes you to find the
> word "asteroid" in the text using the "helpful" page numbers given in
> the index for Ch. 2, for example. Have a drink; it's going to take a
> while...
>
> 5). Kooky criticisms: When Mr. Wollman was criticized about his
> "book" on the internet, he became very agressive. He complained to
> people's ISPs for "abusing" him (the ISP's put him in their killfiles
> and laughed at him, despite his claims of "killing hundreds of accounts"
> and "reporting [x] to the FBI.") He threatened to sue people for
> "libeling" him and causing him "financial damage" (apprently Mr. Wollman
> thinks that any negative criticism is "libel." Of course, he never sued
> or will sue anyone.) He complained to amazon.com for allowing people to
> post "fake" (=critical) reviews of his book. Whatever you do... if you
> call Wollmann about his book, you better praise it, or he will get wewy,
> wewy angwy with you.
>
> 6). Damnation by fake praise: to outdo this
> "damage" the "spinics" (=critics) caused his book, (which had
> nevertheless soared to the 480,000+ place on amazon.com's best-seller
> list) Mr. Wollman flooded the internet book stores with made-up
> "five-star" reviews of his book. Their style immediately shows that the
> "amazed" reader is no other than Mr. Wollmann, but it is interesting to
> look at the kind of praise he gave himself. For example, on amazon.com a
> "reader" claimed Wollman's book is "better than the bible and mein
> kampf" (sic!). Another "reader" claimed this book "makes losers into
> winners", since he "gave Mr. Wollman's book to my little-league
> ice-hockey team to read" and they improved their record. Yet another
> "reader" claims that "if he only had Mr. Wollman's book 20 years ago"
> the cold war would have been won long before it actually was (maybe, but
> who would have won?) It all sounds SO reasonable; what's not to believe?
>
> In conclusion, it all depends. As a "straight" book, it is a total and
> umitigated failure. As a unintentional "joke" book... it is hilarious. I
> actually made a few new friends reading Mr. Wollman's book in
> Barnes&Noble once - I was laughing so hard people had to ask me what on
> earth I was reading. Soon quite a few of the people in the store were
> trying to top each other in finding the funniest overblown nonesense
> they could in the book...
>
> submitted this review on 8/11/00Skill Level: All Levels, Rating:
> Gibberish, total meaningless prattle. A real waste of one tree, because
> I cannot imagine too many people getting duped into buying this lousy
> book unless it's for the unintentional "laugh factor". The so-called
> author should give his head a shake. Then bury it, along with this awful
> book.
>
> submitted this review on 8/5/00Skill Level: All Levels, Rating:
> Written in a turgid, overblown style, this self-published piece of trash
> could have used a brutal editor to correct the more blatant errors in
> grammar, style, and logic. Mr. Wollmann shows an uncanny grasp of the
> non-sequitur, and he asserts much, without providing any supporting
> evidence. His misuse of the quotes of Seth, Bashar, and Jung show he is
> much better at using a scanner with which to generate text, than he is
> at actually writing. Unless you're looking for a doorstop, stay away
> from this vanity piece.
>
> merc...@iwon.com submitted this review on 8/5/00
> Skill Level: All Levels, Rating:
> As a kooky humor master and plagerist, the author is without par, bound
> to become a cult humor classic. Rarely, has any human strung together so
> many big words in such an incoherant manner. Most entertaining thing
> I've read since the "US Tax Codes 1937
>
> "kfr...@sd.quik.com submitted this review on 7/18/00
> Skill Level: All Levels, Rating:
> Editing, grammar, coherency. Those are just the basic things that this
> book lacks. This book is just the worst piece of incoherent trash I have
> ever read. The grammatical errors on the back cover alone should steer
> anyone away from the book. (EG: "Einstein lead us") This is a
> self-published vanity press book that is chock full of nonsense. The
> author makes a point, then insists that other events must flow logically
> because of it. That seems to be the theme of the whole book. I just
> couldn't see whatever point the author was trying to make. He seems to
> make up new words out of existing words by adding hyphens (dis-ease, for
> instance). It attempts to combine astrology, New Age philosophies and
> psychology and takes them to a new low. Suitable as a gag gift but avoid
> otherwise. I only can point out the fact that there's an index after
> each chapter and a complete index at the end of the book and that the
> indexes point to words like 'a' as an example of just how confusing this
> book truly is. There's a lot of better books on the subject. Buy those
> instead. Avoid this one like the plague
>
> submitted this review on 9/19/00
> Skill Level: All Levels, Rating:
> This is a Kook book masquerading as serious science. Ed Wollmann
> attempts to persuade the reader they can create their own reality, that
> their beliefs shape it. This is not science; this is escapism. It is
> likely the author can't handle the truth of his own reality and wants to
> push his incoherent fantasy beliefs onto others. In searching for Edmond
> Wollmann on the Internet and seeing what others have written about him,
> I may be right. I won't even get started about the LONG, RAMBLING,
> INFINITE text the author sacrifices way too many hundreds of pages on.
> Wollmann has a gift for saying the least with the most. This is a Kook
> book; don't read.
>
> *******************
>
> PS: If you are going to buy this POS, buy it used. Don't give that
> asshole any money."
> --
> "I've been writing poetry for nearly fifty years, rest assured it's a
> poem, Pendragon." - Will Dockery demonstrating why he's a douchebag.

Click here to read the complete article

Michael Pendragon <michaelmaleficapendragon@gmail.com> wrote in
news:d0e5c393-a579-417f-9ae2-42f77ecdcdb3n@googlegroups.com:

> On Wednesday, December 27, 2023 at 4:54:35 PM UTC-5, Cujo
> DeSockpuppet wrote:
>> Family Guy <madeforz...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:9fe1ca10-66b5-4f86...@googlegroups.com:
>> > On Tuesday, December 26, 2023 at 6:43:49 PM UTC-5, Cujo DeSockp
> uppet
>> > wrote:
>> >> Peter J Ross <p...@example.invalid> wrote in
>> >> news:slrnuomls...@nntp.pjross.me:
>> >> > On 2023-12-24, W.Dockery <will.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> I managed to publish a book of poetry
>> >> >
>> >> > Even Ed Wollmann has sold more copies of his books than you.
>> >> Not fair, Ed used to call stores as someone else and ask them to
>> >> order the book. I believe he also had Marsha Kalfsbeek and a few
>> >> other F'losers like Little Brucie Kettler doing the same thing.
>> >
>> > That's a very bullshit move.
>> > How would he sell them, anyway?
>> > Have his cronies go in and buy it for him?
>> It happened a little before I started laughing at Edmo but I think
>> the idea was to boost "sales" and get some exposure at book stores.
>> You know
>
>> we are dealing with a world class kook, right?
>>
>> They would end up getting remaindered anyway. When I looked a few
>> years
>
>> after the book came out the San Diego public libraries had something
>> like 15 copies. I couldn't get past the first few pages. It's that
>> bad.
>
>>
>> At one point he bullied the Amazon reviews pages into only keeping
>> the 5
>
>> star reviews, many of them were Edmo's sockpuppets.
>> https://www.amazon.com/Integrated-Astrological-Guide-Self-Empowerment-
>> ebo
>
>> ok/product-reviews/B077CB19BM/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_show_all_btm?ie=UTF8&rev
> iewe
>> rType=all_reviews
>>
>> At one point I gave an over the top 5 star review that lasted for
>> months
>
>> until someone told him it was actually a bad review.
>> >> All Will had were a few imbecilic henchmorons and a daughter who
>> >> was
>
>> >> forced to work at a bait store in Shitkicker, Alabama. As Dunce
>> >> had something to do with it, you can't count out the Canuckistan
>> >> market.
>
>> >> I'll bet they sold one or two in the remainder queues.
>> Here you go:
>>
>> "Edmo had every rewiew critical of his book on Amazon censored. It's
>> full of plagiarism, delusions and outright stupidity with tons of
>> ridiculous phrases and blatant grammatical errors. Here's a repost of
>> the ones that used to be on www.fatbrain.com before they figured out
>> he
>
>> wasn't worth the disk space to host any ads for that piece of crap.
>>
>> ************************
>>
>> submitted this review on 8/13/00
>> Skill Level: All Levels, Rating:
>> Mr Wollmann has published a book that can only be called the greatest
>> waste of trees in the modern world.
>> His book is filled with gross errors, misrepresentation and lies. Mr
>> Wollmann has attempted to blend several new age concepts with the
>> ancient art of astrology and failed utterly and completely. He also
>> needs to hire a 1st class proof reader to correct the many spelling
>> and
>
>> grammar errors. One person I shared my copy of the book found 12
>> errors
>
>> on the back cover alone. She had to resist using her red pencil,
>> stating
>
>> her 7th grade english students had greater writing ability than
>> Wollmann
>
>> has.
>>
>> submitted this review on 8/12/00Skill Level: All Levels, Rating:
>> A literary "plan 9 from outer space".
>> Destined to become a cult classic as "the worst book ever written",
>> this
>
>> so-called book makes other self-published rants by insane people look
>> good by comparison. Here is why:
>>
>> 1). Kooky beliefs: There seems to be nothing Mr. Wollman does NOT
>> believe in. Except for astrology he also believes in ancient
>> astronauts,
>
>> the Rosewell UFO crash, reincarnation, pyramidology, JFK
>> assassination conspiracies, men in black, the "philadelphia
>> experiment", Altantis, and
>
>> more. He keeps using one fringe idea to support another : Rosewell
>> "proves" astrology is accuate, reincarnated spirits provide
>> "eyewitness
>
>> testimony" that Atlantis was real, etc. (Reminds one of the old joke
>> of
>
>> "proving" your stray dog is worth $10,000 because you gave two $5000-
>> dollar alley cats for it.)
>>
>> 2). Kooky mistakes: Mr. Wollman's grasp of *actual* facts, on the
>> other
>
>> hand, is very flimsy. He makes elementary factual mistakes in
>> virtually
>
>> EVERY PAGE of his book. A *very* partial list of what Mr. Wollman
>> thinks
>
>> is true: Orion is a star; tau ceti is in taurus; the Pyramids of Gaza
>> are tetrahedron-shaped; the star Altair supports life; DNA looks
>> "just like a galaxy", go figure. Needless to say, Mr. Wollman
>> believes he knows more science that "all of you spinics [a
>> Wollman-word meaning "critic" and "spin-artist" combined."]
>>
>> 3). Kooky language: Mr. Wollman's book is the only one I know of
>> which has spelling and grammar mistakes on the BACK COVER BLURB,
>> which gives one an idea of how "carefully edited" this book is. As
>> for style, Mr. Wollman sounds like an informercial: Always obsfucate
>> with meaningless "big words". Why say "explains" when you can say
>> "provides a psychological understanding"? Why say "this book has an
>> index" when you
>
>> can say it "contains a complete delineation guide in self-empowerment
>> terms"? It is virtually impossible to read one paragraph in Wollman's
>> book without either falling asleep of bursting out laughing.
>> Incidentally, Mr. Wollman is PROUD of the fact that his writings are
>> unreadable: he proudly proclaimed that he "got phone calls from many
>> readers who read my book and were baffled." Take THAT, #@#$!!
>> critics!
>>
>> 4). Kooky indexes: This book has *13* indexes - one at the end of
>> each chapter, and a re-printing of all of them, one after another, as
>> the "index" at the end of the book. These indexes are the most
>> hilarious bit
>
>> of kookery I have ever seen. They are only *approximately* in
>> alphabetical order (entries such as "the square" are listed in the
>> index
>
>> under 't' for 'the' - reminds me of the Gary Larson cartoon book
>> index where all the cartoons were listed under 't' as "the one about
>> the...").
>
>> They lack entries for most of the terms that are mentioned in the
>> chapter they supposedly "index", but include entries for words like
>> "the", "a", "3" and so on. (My favorite is the index for ch. 2, which
>> has the helpful entry "index" - which refers you to itself!) When you
>> actually *find* a term in this chenobyl of an "index", it *almost
>> always
>
>> refers you to the wrong page*. See how long it takes you to find the
>> word "asteroid" in the text using the "helpful" page numbers given in
>> the index for Ch. 2, for example. Have a drink; it's going to take a
>> while...
>>
>> 5). Kooky criticisms: When Mr. Wollman was criticized about his
>> "book" on the internet, he became very agressive. He complained to
>> people's ISPs for "abusing" him (the ISP's put him in their killfiles
>> and laughed at him, despite his claims of "killing hundreds of
>> accounts"
>
>> and "reporting [x] to the FBI.") He threatened to sue people for
>> "libeling" him and causing him "financial damage" (apprently Mr.
>> Wollman
>
>> thinks that any negative criticism is "libel." Of course, he never
>> sued
>
>> or will sue anyone.) He complained to amazon.com for allowing people
>> to
>
>> post "fake" (=critical) reviews of his book. Whatever you do... if
>> you
>
>> call Wollmann about his book, you better praise it, or he will get
>> wewy,
>
>> wewy angwy with you.
>>
>> 6). Damnation by fake praise: to outdo this
>> "damage" the "spinics" (=critics) caused his book, (which had
>> nevertheless soared to the 480,000+ place on amazon.com's best-seller
>> list) Mr. Wollman flooded the internet book stores with made-up
>> "five-star" reviews of his book. Their style immediately shows that
>> the
>
>> "amazed" reader is no other than Mr. Wollmann, but it is interesting
>> to
>
>> look at the kind of praise he gave himself. For example, on
>> amazon.com a
>
>> "reader" claimed Wollman's book is "better than the bible and mein
>> kampf" (sic!). Another "reader" claimed this book "makes losers into
>> winners", since he "gave Mr. Wollman's book to my little-league
>> ice-hockey team to read" and they improved their record. Yet another
>> "reader" claims that "if he only had Mr. Wollman's book 20 years ago"
>> the cold war would have been won long before it actually was (maybe,
>> but
>
>> who would have won?) It all sounds SO reasonable; what's not to
>> believe?
>
>>
>> In conclusion, it all depends. As a "straight" book, it is a total
>> and umitigated failure. As a unintentional "joke" book... it is
>> hilarious. I
>
>> actually made a few new friends reading Mr. Wollman's book in
>> Barnes&Noble once - I was laughing so hard people had to ask me what
>> on
>
>> earth I was reading. Soon quite a few of the people in the store were
>> trying to top each other in finding the funniest overblown nonesense
>> they could in the book...
>>
>> submitted this review on 8/11/00Skill Level: All Levels, Rating:
>> Gibberish, total meaningless prattle. A real waste of one tree,
>> because
>
>> I cannot imagine too many people getting duped into buying this lousy
>> book unless it's for the unintentional "laugh factor". The so-called
>> author should give his head a shake. Then bury it, along with this
>> awful
>
>> book.
>>
>> submitted this review on 8/5/00Skill Level: All Levels, Rating:
>> Written in a turgid, overblown style, this self-published piece of
>> trash
>
>> could have used a brutal editor to correct the more blatant errors in
>> grammar, style, and logic. Mr. Wollmann shows an uncanny grasp of the
>> non-sequitur, and he asserts much, without providing any supporting
>> evidence. His misuse of the quotes of Seth, Bashar, and Jung show he
>> is
>
>> much better at using a scanner with which to generate text, than he
>> is at actually writing. Unless you're looking for a doorstop, stay
>> away from this vanity piece.
>>
>> merc...@iwon.com submitted this review on 8/5/00
>> Skill Level: All Levels, Rating:
>> As a kooky humor master and plagerist, the author is without par,
>> bound
>
>> to become a cult humor classic. Rarely, has any human strung together
>> so
>
>> many big words in such an incoherant manner. Most entertaining thing
>> I've read since the "US Tax Codes 1937
>>
>> "kfr...@sd.quik.com submitted this review on 7/18/00
>> Skill Level: All Levels, Rating:
>> Editing, grammar, coherency. Those are just the basic things that
>> this book lacks. This book is just the worst piece of incoherent
>> trash I have
>
>> ever read. The grammatical errors on the back cover alone should
>> steer anyone away from the book. (EG: "Einstein lead us") This is a
>> self-published vanity press book that is chock full of nonsense. The
>> author makes a point, then insists that other events must flow
>> logically
>
>> because of it. That seems to be the theme of the whole book. I just
>> couldn't see whatever point the author was trying to make. He seems
>> to make up new words out of existing words by adding hyphens
>> (dis-ease, for
>
>> instance). It attempts to combine astrology, New Age philosophies and
>> psychology and takes them to a new low. Suitable as a gag gift but
>> avoid
>
>> otherwise. I only can point out the fact that there's an index after
>> each chapter and a complete index at the end of the book and that the
>> indexes point to words like 'a' as an example of just how confusing
>> this
>
>> book truly is. There's a lot of better books on the subject. Buy
>> those instead. Avoid this one like the plague
>>
>> submitted this review on 9/19/00
>> Skill Level: All Levels, Rating:
>> This is a Kook book masquerading as serious science. Ed Wollmann
>> attempts to persuade the reader they can create their own reality,
>> that
>
>> their beliefs shape it. This is not science; this is escapism. It is
>> likely the author can't handle the truth of his own reality and wants
>> to
>
>> push his incoherent fantasy beliefs onto others. In searching for
>> Edmond
>
>> Wollmann on the Internet and seeing what others have written about
>> him,
>
>> I may be right. I won't even get started about the LONG, RAMBLING,
>> INFINITE text the author sacrifices way too many hundreds of pages
>> on. Wollmann has a gift for saying the least with the most. This is a
>> Kook book; don't read.
>>
>> *******************
>>
>> PS: If you are going to buy this POS, buy it used. Don't give that
>> asshole any money."
>
> I take it you're not a fan?
>
I'm just pointing there may be worse things than Dreckweasel.

Click here to read the complete article

Peter J Ross <p...@example.invalid> wrote in news:slrnuomls...@nntp.pjross.me:
>> On 2023-12-24, Will Dockery <will.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> >> I managed to publish a book of poetry

Selected Poems 197-2019:

https://www.amazon.com/Selected-Poems-1976-2019-Will-Dockery/dp/0994860013

>> >> > Even Ed Wollmann has sold more copies of his books than you.

His books were probably published years before mine, also.

But I've seen o evidence either way.

>> It happened a little before I started laughing at Edmo but I think the
>> idea was to boost "sales" and get some exposure at book stores. You know
>> we are dealing with a world class kook, right?
>>
>> They would end up getting remaindered anyway. When I looked a few years
>> after the book came out the San Diego public libraries had something
>> like 15 copies. I couldn't get past the first few pages. It's that bad.
>>
>> At one point he bullied the Amazon reviews pages into only keeping the 5
>> star reviews, many of them were Edmo's sockpuppets.
>> https://www.amazon.com/Integrated-Astrological-Guide-Self-Empowerment-ebo
>> ok/product-reviews/B077CB19BM/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_show_all_btm?ie=UTF8&reviewe
>> rType=all_reviews
>>
>
>> Here you go:
>>
>> "Edmo had every rewiew critical of his book on Amazon censored. It's
>> full of plagiarism, delusions and outright stupidity with tons of
>> ridiculous phrases and blatant grammatical errors. Here's a repost of
>> the ones that used to be on www.fatbrain.com before they figured out he
>> wasn't worth the disk space to host any ads for that piece of crap.
>>
>> ************************
>>
>> submitted this review on 8/13/00
>> Skill Level: All Levels, Rating:
>> Mr Wollmann has published a book that can only be called the greatest
>> waste of trees in the modern world.
>> His book is filled with gross errors, misrepresentation and lies. Mr
>> Wollmann has attempted to blend several new age concepts with the
>> ancient art of astrology and failed utterly and completely. He also
>> needs to hire a 1st class proof reader to correct the many spelling and
>> grammar errors. One person I shared my copy of the book found 12 errors
>> on the back cover alone. She had to resist using her red pencil, stating
>> her 7th grade english students had greater writing ability than Wollmann
>> has.
>>
>> submitted this review on 8/12/00Skill Level: All Levels, Rating:
>> A literary "plan 9 from outer space".
>> Destined to become a cult classic as "the worst book ever written", this
>> so-called book makes other self-published rants by insane people look
>> good by comparison. Here is why:
>>
>> 1). Kooky beliefs: There seems to be nothing Mr. Wollman does NOT
>> believe in. Except for astrology he also believes in ancient astronauts,
>> the Rosewell UFO crash, reincarnation, pyramidology, JFK assassination
>> conspiracies, men in black, the "philadelphia experiment", Altantis, and
>> more. He keeps using one fringe idea to support another : Rosewell
>> "proves" astrology is accuate, reincarnated spirits provide "eyewitness
>> testimony" that Atlantis was real, etc. (Reminds one of the old joke of
>> "proving" your stray dog is worth $10,000 because you gave two $5000-
>> dollar alley cats for it.)
>>
>> 2). Kooky mistakes: Mr. Wollman's grasp of *actual* facts, on the other
>> hand, is very flimsy. He makes elementary factual mistakes in virtually
>> EVERY PAGE of his book. A *very* partial list of what Mr. Wollman thinks
>> is true: Orion is a star; tau ceti is in taurus; the Pyramids of Gaza
>> are tetrahedron-shaped; the star Altair supports life; DNA looks "just
>> like a galaxy", go figure. Needless to say, Mr. Wollman believes he
>> knows more science that "all of you spinics [a Wollman-word meaning
>> "critic" and "spin-artist" combined."]
>>
>> 3). Kooky language: Mr. Wollman's book is the only one I know of which
>> has spelling and grammar mistakes on the BACK COVER BLURB, which gives
>> one an idea of how "carefully edited" this book is. As for style, Mr.
>> Wollman sounds like an informercial: Always obsfucate with meaningless
>> "big words". Why say "explains" when you can say "provides a
>> psychological understanding"? Why say "this book has an index" when you
>> can say it "contains a complete delineation guide in self-empowerment
>> terms"? It is virtually impossible to read one paragraph in Wollman's
>> book without either falling asleep of bursting out laughing.
>> Incidentally, Mr. Wollman is PROUD of the fact that his writings are
>> unreadable: he proudly proclaimed that he "got phone calls from many
>> readers who read my book and were baffled." Take THAT, #@#$!! critics!
>>
>> 4). Kooky indexes: This book has *13* indexes - one at the end of each
>> chapter, and a re-printing of all of them, one after another, as the
>> "index" at the end of the book. These indexes are the most hilarious bit
>> of kookery I have ever seen. They are only *approximately* in
>> alphabetical order (entries such as "the square" are listed in the index
>> under 't' for 'the' - reminds me of the Gary Larson cartoon book index
>> where all the cartoons were listed under 't' as "the one about the...").
>> They lack entries for most of the terms that are mentioned in the
>> chapter they supposedly "index", but include entries for words like
>> "the", "a", "3" and so on. (My favorite is the index for ch. 2, which
>> has the helpful entry "index" - which refers you to itself!) When you
>> actually *find* a term in this chenobyl of an "index", it *almost always
>> refers you to the wrong page*. See how long it takes you to find the
>> word "asteroid" in the text using the "helpful" page numbers given in
>> the index for Ch. 2, for example. Have a drink; it's going to take a
>> while...
>>
>> 5). Kooky criticisms: When Mr. Wollman was criticized about his
>> "book" on the internet, he became very agressive. He complained to
>> people's ISPs for "abusing" him (the ISP's put him in their killfiles
>> and laughed at him, despite his claims of "killing hundreds of accounts"
>> and "reporting [x] to the FBI.") He threatened to sue people for
>> "libeling" him and causing him "financial damage" (apprently Mr. Wollman
>> thinks that any negative criticism is "libel." Of course, he never sued
>> or will sue anyone.) He complained to amazon.com for allowing people to
>> post "fake" (=critical) reviews of his book. Whatever you do... if you
>> call Wollmann about his book, you better praise it, or he will get wewy,
>> wewy angwy with you.
>>
>> 6). Damnation by fake praise: to outdo this
>> "damage" the "spinics" (=critics) caused his book, (which had
>> nevertheless soared to the 480,000+ place on amazon.com's best-seller
>> list) Mr. Wollman flooded the internet book stores with made-up
>> "five-star" reviews of his book. Their style immediately shows that the
>> "amazed" reader is no other than Mr. Wollmann, but it is interesting to
>> look at the kind of praise he gave himself. For example, on amazon.com a
>> "reader" claimed Wollman's book is "better than the bible and mein
>> kampf" (sic!). Another "reader" claimed this book "makes losers into
>> winners", since he "gave Mr. Wollman's book to my little-league
>> ice-hockey team to read" and they improved their record. Yet another
>> "reader" claims that "if he only had Mr. Wollman's book 20 years ago"
>> the cold war would have been won long before it actually was (maybe, but
>> who would have won?) It all sounds SO reasonable; what's not to believe?
>>
>> In conclusion, it all depends. As a "straight" book, it is a total and
>> umitigated failure. As a unintentional "joke" book... it is hilarious. I
>> actually made a few new friends reading Mr. Wollman's book in
>> Barnes&Noble once - I was laughing so hard people had to ask me what on
>> earth I was reading. Soon quite a few of the people in the store were
>> trying to top each other in finding the funniest overblown nonesense
>> they could in the book...
>>
>> submitted this review on 8/11/00Skill Level: All Levels, Rating:
>> Gibberish, total meaningless prattle. A real waste of one tree, because
>> I cannot imagine too many people getting duped into buying this lousy
>> book unless it's for the unintentional "laugh factor". The so-called
>> author should give his head a shake. Then bury it, along with this awful
>> book.
>>
>> submitted this review on 8/5/00Skill Level: All Levels, Rating:
>> Written in a turgid, overblown style, this self-published piece of trash
>> could have used a brutal editor to correct the more blatant errors in
>> grammar, style, and logic. Mr. Wollmann shows an uncanny grasp of the
>> non-sequitur, and he asserts much, without providing any supporting
>> evidence. His misuse of the quotes of Seth, Bashar, and Jung show he is
>> much better at using a scanner with which to generate text, than he is
>> at actually writing. Unless you're looking for a doorstop, stay away
>> from this vanity piece.
>>
>> merc...@iwon.com submitted this review on 8/5/00
>> Skill Level: All Levels, Rating:
>> As a kooky humor master and plagerist, the author is without par, bound
>> to become a cult humor classic. Rarely, has any human strung together so
>> many big words in such an incoherant manner. Most entertaining thing
>> I've read since the "US Tax Codes 1937
>>
>> "kfr...@sd.quik.com submitted this review on 7/18/00
>> Skill Level: All Levels, Rating:
>> Editing, grammar, coherency. Those are just the basic things that this
>> book lacks. This book is just the worst piece of incoherent trash I have
>> ever read. The grammatical errors on the back cover alone should steer
>> anyone away from the book. (EG: "Einstein lead us") This is a
>> self-published vanity press book that is chock full of nonsense. The
>> author makes a point, then insists that other events must flow logically
>> because of it. That seems to be the theme of the whole book. I just
>> couldn't see whatever point the author was trying to make. He seems to
>> make up new words out of existing words by adding hyphens (dis-ease, for
>> instance). It attempts to combine astrology, New Age philosophies and
>> psychology and takes them to a new low. Suitable as a gag gift but avoid
>> otherwise. I only can point out the fact that there's an index after
>> each chapter and a complete index at the end of the book and that the
>> indexes point to words like 'a' as an example of just how confusing this
>> book truly is. There's a lot of better books on the subject. Buy those
>> instead. Avoid this one like the plague
>>
>> submitted this review on 9/19/00
>> Skill Level: All Levels, Rating:
>> This is a Kook book masquerading as serious science. Ed Wollmann
>> attempts to persuade the reader they can create their own reality, that
>> their beliefs shape it. This is not science; this is escapism. It is
>> likely the author can't handle the truth of his own reality and wants to
>> push his incoherent fantasy beliefs onto others. In searching for Edmond
>> Wollmann on the Internet and seeing what others have written about him,
>> I may be right. I won't even get started about the LONG, RAMBLING,
>> INFINITE text the author sacrifices way too many hundreds of pages on.
>> Wollmann has a gift for saying the least with the most. This is a Kook
>> book; don't read.
>>
>> *******************
>>
>> PS: If you are going to buy this POS, buy it used. Don't give that
>> asshole any money."
>> --
>> "I've been writing poetry for nearly fifty years, rest assured it's a
>> poem, Pendragon." - Will Dockery

Click here to read the complete article

George J. Dance wrote:
>
> The big news today on the Google version of aapc is this announcement at the top of the front page:
> "Effective February 15, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support new Usenet content. Posting and subscribing will be disallowed, and new content from Usenet peers will not appear. Viewing and searching of historical data will still be supported as it is done today."

> That's the story. But what does it mean? (A rhetorical question; Google explains what it means; see below.)

> That's important to be clear on, since Team Monkey's news channel, NGBS, has already begun spreading their usual misinformation. NastyGoon, aapc's Jeopardy scholar, has been posting the Jeopardy Lie that it just means there will be "No "Eternal September" or "NovaBBS" postings after 2-15-24?" - and perhaps no hogwasher(?) either, since they gleefully addd that "David Dalton may also be SOL." Their cub reporter the Asstroll has explained that in a story of his own, based on nothing but assumption:

> "I would assume that posts posted to the Google version of the "Usenet" group, through it's web interface or via GMail to the Google group wouldn't be considered Usenet posts. It looks like Google is taking it's version of Usenet groups (with prior Usenet postings) and making it general Internet, not Usenet accessible."

> The only pushback so far has been from the man NastyGoon was trolling, Dr. Dalton, who explained the change this way:

> "Nancy, it means that you and other google groups users will
> have to switch to a newsreader accessing a newsserver
> on or before February 15. (Posting and subscribing via
> google groups will be disallowed.)"

> Dr. Dalton is right. Google will continue to maintain its usenet archive (something they committed to doing when they bought it from Deja News last century), but will no longer update them, or allow posting to them from Google. (This is explained in full in the archive below.) Contrary to the NGBS stories,
> Eternal September and NovaBBS posters will be able to continue to post to aapc (though their posts will not show up on Google), but Google Gropers will no.

> |So what can Team Monkey, with their dreams of turning aapc into the new "Algonqin Club", do? For now, they could open a new Google Group, and even name it "alt.arts.poetry.comments Official Group" (just as they've done on facebook). Or (as their Asstroll has been urging) they can do the same thing on reddit. But neither of those will be aapc. aapc, like Usenet, will continue though in a radically different form.

> *************************************************************************

> Google Groups ending support for Usenet
> If you work with Usenet groups in Google Groups, support for these groups is ending soon.

> What’s changing?
> Starting on February 22, 2024, you can no longer use Google Groups (at groups.google.com) to post content to Usenet groups, subscribe to Usenet groups, or view new Usenet content. You can continue to view and search for historical Usenet content posted before February 22, 2024 on Google Groups.

> In addition, Google’s Network News Transfer Protocol (NNTP) server and associated peering will no longer be available, meaning Google will not support serving new Usenet content or exchanging content with other NNTP servers.

> This change will not impact any non-Usenet content on Google Groups, including all user and organization-created groups. Most of the current Google Groups content is not Usenet content and will not be affected.

> What do I need to do?
> If you don’t actively engage with Usenet content, you don’t need to do anything. Current Usenet users will need to do two things before February 22, 2024 if they want to continue engaging with Usenet content:

> Find a new Usenet client. Several free and paid alternatives are available, both web-based and application-based. To find a client, do a web search for "how do I find a usenet text client"
> Find a new public Usenet server. The new client you choose will likely have a default server or a set of curated options for you. If not, to find a server, do a web search for "public NNTP servers."
> Because Usenet is a distributed system, you do not need to migrate data. All of the Usenet content you can access today on Google Groups should already be synced to the new server you choose. After you select a new client and server, you can reselect the groups you’re interested in.

> Why is Google Groups support for Usenet ending?
> Over the last several years, legitimate activity in text-based Usenet groups has declined significantly because users have moved to more modern technologies and formats such as social media and web-based forums. Much of the content being disseminated via Usenet today is binary (non-text) file sharing, which Google Groups does not support, as well as spam.

> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action/c/LMHjnnjcgjo

With new Usenet venues becoming available as well, the end of Google Groups isn't as final as it may seem.

On Friday, December 29, 2023 at 9:40:41 AM UTC-5, W.Dockery wrote:
> George J. Dance wrote:
> >
> > The big news today on the Google version of aapc is this announcement at the top of the front page:
> > "Effective February 15, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support new Usenet content. Posting and subscribing will be disallowed, and new content from Usenet peers will not appear. Viewing and searching of historical data will still be supported as it is done today."
>
> > That's the story. But what does it mean? (A rhetorical question; Google explains what it means; see below.)
>
> > That's important to be clear on, since Team Monkey's news channel, NGBS, has already begun spreading their usual misinformation. NastyGoon, aapc's Jeopardy scholar, has been posting the Jeopardy Lie that it just means there will be "No "Eternal September" or "NovaBBS" postings after 2-15-24?" - and perhaps no hogwasher(?) either, since they gleefully addd that "David Dalton may also be SOL." Their cub reporter the Asstroll has explained that in a story of his own, based on nothing but assumption:
>
> > "I would assume that posts posted to the Google version of the "Usenet" group, through it's web interface or via GMail to the Google group wouldn't be considered Usenet posts. It looks like Google is taking it's version of Usenet groups (with prior Usenet postings) and making it general Internet, not Usenet accessible."
>
> > The only pushback so far has been from the man NastyGoon was trolling, Dr. Dalton, who explained the change this way:
>
> > "Nancy, it means that you and other google groups users will
> > have to switch to a newsreader accessing a newsserver
> > on or before February 15. (Posting and subscribing via
> > google groups will be disallowed.)"
>
> > Dr. Dalton is right. Google will continue to maintain its usenet archive (something they committed to doing when they bought it from Deja News last century), but will no longer update them, or allow posting to them from Google. (This is explained in full in the archive below.) Contrary to the NGBS stories,
> > Eternal September and NovaBBS posters will be able to continue to post to aapc (though their posts will not show up on Google), but Google Gropers will no.
>
> > |So what can Team Monkey, with their dreams of turning aapc into the new "Algonqin Club", do? For now, they could open a new Google Group, and even name it "alt.arts.poetry.comments Official Group" (just as they've done on facebook). Or (as their Asstroll has been urging) they can do the same thing on reddit. But neither of those will be aapc. aapc, like Usenet, will continue though in a radically different form.
>
> > *************************************************************************
>
> > Google Groups ending support for Usenet
> > If you work with Usenet groups in Google Groups, support for these groups is ending soon.
>
> > What’s changing?
> > Starting on February 22, 2024, you can no longer use Google Groups (at groups.google.com) to post content to Usenet groups, subscribe to Usenet groups, or view new Usenet content. You can continue to view and search for historical Usenet content posted before February 22, 2024 on Google Groups.
>
> > In addition, Google’s Network News Transfer Protocol (NNTP) server and associated peering will no longer be available, meaning Google will not support serving new Usenet content or exchanging content with other NNTP servers.
>
> > This change will not impact any non-Usenet content on Google Groups, including all user and organization-created groups. Most of the current Google Groups content is not Usenet content and will not be affected.
>
> > What do I need to do?
> > If you don’t actively engage with Usenet content, you don’t need to do anything. Current Usenet users will need to do two things before February 22, 2024 if they want to continue engaging with Usenet content:
>
> > Find a new Usenet client. Several free and paid alternatives are available, both web-based and application-based. To find a client, do a web search for "how do I find a usenet text client"
> > Find a new public Usenet server. The new client you choose will likely have a default server or a set of curated options for you. If not, to find a server, do a web search for "public NNTP servers."
> > Because Usenet is a distributed system, you do not need to migrate data.. All of the Usenet content you can access today on Google Groups should already be synced to the new server you choose. After you select a new client and server, you can reselect the groups you’re interested in.
>
> > Why is Google Groups support for Usenet ending?
> > Over the last several years, legitimate activity in text-based Usenet groups has declined significantly because users have moved to more modern technologies and formats such as social media and web-based forums. Much of the content being disseminated via Usenet today is binary (non-text) file sharing, which Google Groups does not support, as well as spam.
>
> > https://groups.google.com/g/comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action/c/LMHjnnjcgjo
> With new Usenet venues becoming available as well, the end of Google Groups isn't as final as it may seem.

You didn't listen the first time did you? Was it what you like to call "gibberish" to you and you couldn't understand it?
Google Groups are not ending-- my Google Group will keep going on while Google Group's AAPC and RAP will stop and it has nothing to do with new Usenet venues...

Ash Wurthing wrote:

> On Friday, December 29, 2023 at 9:40:41 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
>> George J. Dance wrote:
>
>> > The big news today on the Google version of aapc is this announcement at the top of the front page:
>> > "Effective February 15, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support new Usenet content. Posting and subscribing will be disallowed, and new content from Usenet peers will not appear. Viewing and searching of historical data will still be supported as it is done today."
>>
>> > That's the story. But what does it mean? (A rhetorical question; Google explains what it means; see below.)
>>
>> > That's important to be clear on, since Team Monkey's news channel, NGBS, has already begun spreading their usual misinformation. NastyGoon, aapc's Jeopardy scholar, has been posting the Jeopardy Lie that it just means there will be "No "Eternal September" or "NovaBBS" postings after 2-15-24?" - and perhaps no hogwasher(?) either, since they gleefully addd that "David Dalton may also be SOL." Their cub reporter the Asstroll has explained that in a story of his own, based on nothing but assumption:
>>
>> > "I would assume that posts posted to the Google version of the "Usenet" group, through it's web interface or via GMail to the Google group wouldn't be considered Usenet posts. It looks like Google is taking it's version of Usenet groups (with prior Usenet postings) and making it general Internet, not Usenet accessible."
>>
>> > The only pushback so far has been from the man NastyGoon was trolling, Dr. Dalton, who explained the change this way:
>>
>> > "Nancy, it means that you and other google groups users will
>> > have to switch to a newsreader accessing a newsserver
>> > on or before February 15. (Posting and subscribing via
>> > google groups will be disallowed.)"
>>
>> > Dr. Dalton is right. Google will continue to maintain its usenet archive (something they committed to doing when they bought it from Deja News last century), but will no longer update them, or allow posting to them from Google. (This is explained in full in the archive below.) Contrary to the NGBS stories,
>> > Eternal September and NovaBBS posters will be able to continue to post to aapc (though their posts will not show up on Google), but Google Gropers will no.
>>
>> > |So what can Team Monkey, with their dreams of turning aapc into the new "Algonqin Club", do? For now, they could open a new Google Group, and even name it "alt.arts.poetry.comments Official Group" (just as they've done on facebook). Or (as their Asstroll has been urging) they can do the same thing on reddit. But neither of those will be aapc. aapc, like Usenet, will continue though in a radically different form.
>>
>> > *************************************************************************
>>
>> > Google Groups ending support for Usenet
>> > If you work with Usenet groups in Google Groups, support for these groups is ending soon.
>>
>> > What’s changing?
>> > Starting on February 22, 2024, you can no longer use Google Groups (at groups.google.com) to post content to Usenet groups, subscribe to Usenet groups, or view new Usenet content. You can continue to view and search for historical Usenet content posted before February 22, 2024 on Google Groups.
>>
>> > In addition, Google’s Network News Transfer Protocol (NNTP) server and associated peering will no longer be available, meaning Google will not support serving new Usenet content or exchanging content with other NNTP servers.
>>
>> > This change will not impact any non-Usenet content on Google Groups, including all user and organization-created groups. Most of the current Google Groups content is not Usenet content and will not be affected.
>>
>> > What do I need to do?
>> > If you don’t actively engage with Usenet content, you don’t need to do anything. Current Usenet users will need to do two things before February 22, 2024 if they want to continue engaging with Usenet content:
>>
>> > Find a new Usenet client. Several free and paid alternatives are available, both web-based and application-based. To find a client, do a web search for "how do I find a usenet text client"
>> > Find a new public Usenet server. The new client you choose will likely have a default server or a set of curated options for you. If not, to find a server, do a web search for "public NNTP servers."
>> > Because Usenet is a distributed system, you do not need to migrate data.. All of the Usenet content you can access today on Google Groups should already be synced to the new server you choose. After you select a new client and server, you can reselect the groups you’re interested in.
>>
>> > Why is Google Groups support for Usenet ending?
>> > Over the last several years, legitimate activity in text-based Usenet groups has declined significantly because users have moved to more modern technologies and formats such as social media and web-based forums. Much of the content being disseminated via Usenet today is binary (non-text) file sharing, which Google Groups does not support, as well as spam.
>>
>> > https://groups.google.com/g/comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action/c/LMHjnnjcgjo
>> With new Usenet venues becoming available as well, the end of Google Groups isn't as final as it may seem.

> You didn't listen the first time did you? Was it what you like to call "gibberish" to you and you couldn't understand it?
> Google Groups are not ending-- my Google Group will keep going on while Google Group's AAPC and RAP will stop and it has nothing to do with new Usenet venues...

No, a.a.p.c. and r.a.p. will not stop, but we might not be seeing YOU posting here after the February cut off, Ash, if you decide to stop posting at that time.

"Good riddance," as PJR wrote.

😃

Ash Wurthing wrote:

> On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 5:31:45 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
>
>> "Effective February 15, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support new Usenet content. Posting and subscribing will be disallowed, and new content from Usenet peers will not appear. Viewing and searching of historical data will still be supported as it is done today."
>>
>> As posted at the top of Google Groups. David Dalton may also be SOL.

> Hello Rachel,
> I would assume that posts posted to the Google version of the "Usenet" group, through it's web interface or via GMail to the Google group wouldn't be considered Usenet posts. It looks like Google is taking it's version of Usenet groups (with prior Usenet postings) and making it general Internet, not Usenet accessible.

^^^^^^^^^^^^

Now you're obviously the confused one, Ash.

^^^^^^^

Since you brought confusion up.

HTH and HAND.

And as George J. Dance set the record straight:

> The big news today on the Google version of aapc is this announcement at the top of the front page:
> "Effective February 15, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support new Usenet content. Posting and subscribing will be disallowed, and new content from Usenet peers will not appear. Viewing and searching of historical data will still be supported as it is done today."