"I'm not impressed by the net.martyr archetype on-line. I saw it many
times on the Usenet newsgroups, and now it's starting to infect
blogs. People are entitled to their opinions, but the net.martyr raises
it to some kind of moral crusade, and an ill-considered, unproductive,
and egomaniacal one at that. Some of their attributes:"

https://www.reddit.com/r/ClassicUsenet/comments/urley0/netmartyr/

On 5/11/23 16:56, Paul W. Schleck wrote:
> "I'm not impressed by the net.martyr archetype on-line. I saw it many
> times on the Usenet newsgroups, and now it's starting to infect
> blogs. People are entitled to their opinions, but the net.martyr raises
> it to some kind of moral crusade, and an ill-considered, unproductive,
> and egomaniacal one at that. Some of their attributes:"
>
> https://www.reddit.com/r/ClassicUsenet/comments/urley0/netmartyr/
>

" - Even if Usenet is obsolete, its history may contain lessons for
next-generation distributed social media that were not learned by later
commercial efforts like Twitter and Facebook."

^ this one. Now that I know how Usenet works, I see how many platforms
are just subsets of Usenet.

On Tue, 20 Feb 2024, immibis wrote:

> On 5/11/23 16:56, Paul W. Schleck wrote:
>> "I'm not impressed by the net.martyr archetype on-line. I saw it many
>> times on the Usenet newsgroups, and now it's starting to infect
>> blogs. People are entitled to their opinions, but the net.martyr raises
>> it to some kind of moral crusade, and an ill-considered, unproductive,
>> and egomaniacal one at that. Some of their attributes:"
>>
>> https://www.reddit.com/r/ClassicUsenet/comments/urley0/netmartyr/
>>
>
> " - Even if Usenet is obsolete, its history may contain lessons for
> next-generation distributed social media that were not learned by later
> commercial efforts like Twitter and Facebook."
>
> ^ this one. Now that I know how Usenet works, I see how many platforms are
> just subsets of Usenet.

What I find very powerful in terms of people who write things I don't want
to read, is to not read them.

It's very difficult for me to understand how people can be so upset over a
blog or a message. You know who wrote it, and you can just ignore reading
texts by that person or add the person to a killfile if you have one.
Problem solved.

On 2024-02-20, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

> What I find very powerful in terms of people who write things I don't want
> to read, is to not read them.
>
> It's very difficult for me to understand how people can be so upset over a
> blog or a message. You know who wrote it, and you can just ignore reading
> texts by that person or add the person to a killfile if you have one.
> Problem solved.

Ego doesn't want the victimhood problem solved, because more
victimhood is paramount to more ego.

--
oldernow
xyz001 at nym.hush.com

On Tue, 20 Feb 2024, oldernow wrote:

> On 2024-02-20, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>
>> What I find very powerful in terms of people who write things I don't want
>> to read, is to not read them.
>>
>> It's very difficult for me to understand how people can be so upset over a
>> blog or a message. You know who wrote it, and you can just ignore reading
>> texts by that person or add the person to a killfile if you have one.
>> Problem solved.
>
> Ego doesn't want the victimhood problem solved, because more
> victimhood is paramount to more ego.

Nice take on the theme! It makes perfect sense to me.

In news.groups immibis <news@immibis.com> wrote:
> On 5/11/23 16:56, Paul W. Schleck wrote:
>> "I'm not impressed by the net.martyr archetype on-line. I saw it many
>> times on the Usenet newsgroups, and now it's starting to infect
>> blogs. People are entitled to their opinions, but the net.martyr raises
>> it to some kind of moral crusade, and an ill-considered, unproductive,
>> and egomaniacal one at that. Some of their attributes:"
>>
>> https://www.reddit.com/r/ClassicUsenet/comments/urley0/netmartyr/
>>
>
> " - Even if Usenet is obsolete, its history may contain lessons for
> next-generation distributed social media that were not learned by later
> commercial efforts like Twitter and Facebook."
>
> ^ this one. Now that I know how Usenet works, I see how many platforms
> are just subsets of Usenet.

(Please don't forget that Usenet proper is just a subset of Netnews).

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

On 2/28/24 12:38, Louis Epstein wrote:
> Please don't forget that Usenet proper is just a subset of Netnews

I would not consider either Usenet nor Netnews to be a subset of the other.

I would consider Netnews and Usenet to be two disparate networks with
some overlap / union and still other parts that are exclusive to one or
the other.

--
Grant. . . .

Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:

> On 2/28/24 12:38, Louis Epstein wrote:
> > Please don't forget that Usenet proper is just a subset of Netnews
> >
>
> I would not consider either Usenet nor Netnews to be a subset of the other.
>
> I would consider Netnews and Usenet to be two disparate networks with
> some overlap / union and still other parts that are exclusive to one or
> the other.
>

What distinguishes one from the other?

--
^Ï^. Sn!pe, PA, FIBS - Professional Crastinator

My pet rock Gordon just is.

On 2/28/24 19:08, Sn!pe wrote:
> What distinguishes one from the other?

I'm assuming that "NetNews" is a reference to FidoNet (or other FTN) echos.

Usenet is one set of groups and FidoNet echos are a different set of groups.

With the gatewaying that happens between, there is some amount of
overlap between them.

But each will have newsgroups / echos that the other does not have.

Grant. . . .

Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
>On 2/28/24 19:08, Sn!pe wrote:

>>What distinguishes one from the other?

>I'm assuming that "NetNews" is a reference to FidoNet (or other FTN) echos.

>Usenet is one set of groups and FidoNet echos are a different set of groups.

I don't agree. NetNews and Usenet are synonymous terms. RFCs 850 and
1036 refer to Usenet; RFC 5536 to Netnews. Some documents refer to
USENET. There isn't a lot of consistency.

The only distinction I make between Usenet and newsgroups is that Usenet
is limited to newsgroups whose articles are distributed; local
newsgroups aren't Usenet. But plenty of people don't even make that
distinction.

>With the gatewaying that happens between, there is some amount of
>overlap between them.

>But each will have newsgroups / echos that the other does not have.

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
> >On 2/28/24 19:08, Sn!pe wrote:
>
> >>What distinguishes one from the other?
>
> >I'm assuming that "NetNews" is a reference to FidoNet (or other FTN) echos.
>
> >Usenet is one set of groups and FidoNet echos are a different set of groups.
>
> I don't agree. NetNews and Usenet are synonymous terms. RFCs 850 and
> 1036 refer to Usenet; RFC 5536 to Netnews. Some documents refer to
> USENET. There isn't a lot of consistency.
>
> The only distinction I make between Usenet and newsgroups is that Usenet
> is limited to newsgroups whose articles are distributed; local
> newsgroups aren't Usenet. But plenty of people don't even make that
> distinction.

Agreed, with the distinction that some 'local' newsgroups *are*
distributed or/and are *not*local, in the sense of limited to one
geographical area.

For example HP had (has?) hp.* newsgroups, which were distributed
worldwide - i.e. not local -, but were only company-internal, so not
part of Usenet.

So I think we need some other term for 'local', but I can't think of a
good one.

I divide NetNews into a Usenet (for example these groups) part and a
non-Usenet (for example hp.*) part, but that's not very clear to a lot
of folks either.

> >With the gatewaying that happens between, there is some amount of
> >overlap between them.
>
> >But each will have newsgroups / echos that the other does not have.

Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
>On 2/28/24 19:08, Sn!pe wrote:
>> What distinguishes one from the other?
>
>I'm assuming that "NetNews" is a reference to FidoNet (or other FTN) echos.
>
>Usenet is one set of groups and FidoNet echos are a different set of groups.

And where does altnet fit in? The alt.groups are not part of the Big Eight
but are they part of Usenet? Admin opinions seem to differ...
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
>>>On 2/28/24 19:08, Sn!pe wrote:

>>>>What distinguishes one from the other?

>>>I'm assuming that "NetNews" is a reference to FidoNet (or other FTN) echos.

>>>Usenet is one set of groups and FidoNet echos are a different set of groups.

>>I don't agree. NetNews and Usenet are synonymous terms. RFCs 850 and
>>1036 refer to Usenet; RFC 5536 to Netnews. Some documents refer to
>>USENET. There isn't a lot of consistency.

>>The only distinction I make between Usenet and newsgroups is that Usenet
>>is limited to newsgroups whose articles are distributed; local
>>newsgroups aren't Usenet. But plenty of people don't even make that
>>distinction.

> Agreed, with the distinction that some 'local' newsgroups *are*
>distributed or/and are *not*local, in the sense of limited to one
>geographical area.

I use "local" with respect to the network, not geography. If articles in
these groups don't leave the network, they're local.

> For example HP had (has?) hp.* newsgroups, which were distributed
>worldwide - i.e. not local -, but were only company-internal, so not
>part of Usenet.

> So I think we need some other term for 'local', but I can't think of a
>good one.

I've always used "institutional", for groups related to a company or
university.

In newsgroups in which discussion is supposed to be related to
geography, I use the term "regional". If there's discussion without
relating it to geography, then "international".

My terminology hasn't caught on.

> I divide NetNews into a Usenet (for example these groups) part and a
>non-Usenet (for example hp.*) part, but that's not very clear to a lot
>of folks either.

>>>With the gatewaying that happens between, there is some amount of
>>>overlap between them.

>>>But each will have newsgroups / echos that the other does not have.

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> >Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> >>Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
> >>>On 2/28/24 19:08, Sn!pe wrote:
>
> >>>>What distinguishes one from the other?
>
> >>>I'm assuming that "NetNews" is a reference to FidoNet (or other FTN) echos.
>
> >>>Usenet is one set of groups and FidoNet echos are a different set of groups.
>
> >>I don't agree. NetNews and Usenet are synonymous terms. RFCs 850 and
> >>1036 refer to Usenet; RFC 5536 to Netnews. Some documents refer to
> >>USENET. There isn't a lot of consistency.
>
> >>The only distinction I make between Usenet and newsgroups is that Usenet
> >>is limited to newsgroups whose articles are distributed; local
> >>newsgroups aren't Usenet. But plenty of people don't even make that
> >>distinction.
>
> > Agreed, with the distinction that some 'local' newsgroups *are*
> >distributed or/and are *not*local, in the sense of limited to one
> >geographical area.
>
> I use "local" with respect to the network, not geography. If articles in
> these groups don't leave the network, they're local.
>
> > For example HP had (has?) hp.* newsgroups, which were distributed
> >worldwide - i.e. not local -, but were only company-internal, so not
> >part of Usenet.
>
> > So I think we need some other term for 'local', but I can't think of a
> >good one.
>
> I've always used "institutional", for groups related to a company or
> university.
>
> In newsgroups in which discussion is supposed to be related to
> geography, I use the term "regional". If there's discussion without
> relating it to geography, then "international".

Thanks for sharing your views.

> My terminology hasn't caught on.

Yeah, neither have mine. Bummer! :-)

Terminology will always be a problem. So we can only explain what we
mean in a given situation/context (assuming someone *asks* what we mean,
instead of jumping to the wrong conclusion).

> > I divide NetNews into a Usenet (for example these groups) part and a
> >non-Usenet (for example hp.*) part, but that's not very clear to a lot
> >of folks either.
>
> >>>With the gatewaying that happens between, there is some amount of
> >>>overlap between them.
>
> >>>But each will have newsgroups / echos that the other does not have.

Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote at 18:54 this Thursday (GMT):
> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
[snip]
>> I've always used "institutional", for groups related to a company or
>> university.
>>
>> In newsgroups in which discussion is supposed to be related to
>> geography, I use the term "regional". If there's discussion without
>> relating it to geography, then "international".
>
> Thanks for sharing your views.
>
>> My terminology hasn't caught on.
>
> Yeah, neither have mine. Bummer! :-)
>
> Terminology will always be a problem. So we can only explain what we
> mean in a given situation/context (assuming someone *asks* what we mean,
> instead of jumping to the wrong conclusion).

Yeah, it can get annoying fast. The overlapping of definitions does not
help.
[snip]
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

Op 29-2-2024 om 14:08 schreef Scott Dorsey:
> Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
>> On 2/28/24 19:08, Sn!pe wrote:
>>> What distinguishes one from the other?
>>
>> I'm assuming that "NetNews" is a reference to FidoNet (or other FTN) echos.
>>
>> Usenet is one set of groups and FidoNet echos are a different set of groups.
>
> And where does altnet fit in? The alt.groups are not part of the Big Eight
> but are they part of Usenet? Admin opinions seem to differ...
> --scott
>

Of course alt.* groups are part of usenet.
Just as:
nl.*
de.*
uk.*
fr.*
be.*
cakewalk.*
xs4all.*
etcetera

All of these are not part of the big eight.

Rink

Rink <rink.hof.haalditmaarweg@planet.nl> wrote at 19:23 this Friday (GMT):
> Op 29-2-2024 om 14:08 schreef Scott Dorsey:
>> Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
>>> On 2/28/24 19:08, Sn!pe wrote:
>>>> What distinguishes one from the other?
>>>
>>> I'm assuming that "NetNews" is a reference to FidoNet (or other FTN) echos.
>>>
>>> Usenet is one set of groups and FidoNet echos are a different set of groups.
>>
>> And where does altnet fit in? The alt.groups are not part of the Big Eight
>> but are they part of Usenet? Admin opinions seem to differ...
>> --scott
>>
>
>
> Of course alt.* groups are part of usenet.
> Just as:
> nl.*
> de.*
> uk.*
> fr.*
> be.*
> cakewalk.*
> xs4all.*
> etcetera
>
> All of these are not part of the big eight.
>
> Rink

Does that include eternal-september.* ?
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.fan.usenet.]
Rink <rink.hof.haalditmaarweg@planet.nl> wrote at 19:23 this Friday (GMT):
> Op 29-2-2024 om 14:08 schreef Scott Dorsey:
>> Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
>>> On 2/28/24 19:08, Sn!pe wrote:
>>>> What distinguishes one from the other?
>>>
>>> I'm assuming that "NetNews" is a reference to FidoNet (or other FTN) echos.
>>>
>>> Usenet is one set of groups and FidoNet echos are a different set of groups.
>>
>> And where does altnet fit in? The alt.groups are not part of the Big Eight
>> but are they part of Usenet? Admin opinions seem to differ...
>> --scott
>>
>
>
> Of course alt.* groups are part of usenet.
> Just as:
> nl.*
> de.*
> uk.*
> fr.*
> be.*
> cakewalk.*
> xs4all.*
> etcetera
>
> All of these are not part of the big eight.
>
> Rink

Yeah, they're shared between multiple servers.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom