Just seen this while reading Groups online...

Effective February 22, 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.

On 29/01/2024 17:49, Mike W wrote:
> Just seen this while reading Groups online...
>
> Effective February 22, 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.
>
>

Old news, good news.

--
Chris Elvidge, England
NERVE GAS IS NOT A TOY

On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 09:49:47 -0800 (PST), Mike W wrote:

> Effective February 22, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support new
> Usenet content.

Oh dear, how sad, never mind.

On 1/29/24 12:49 PM, Mike W wrote:
> Just seen this while reading Groups online...
>
> Effective February 22, 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.

In short, it's GONE.

The bean-counters didn't see any profit, so ...

On the plus, it means fewer annoying little spammers.

STILL hoping Musk will pick it up in the 'free speech'
theme.

On 30/01/2024 00:58, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 09:49:47 -0800 (PST), Mike W wrote:
>
>> Effective February 22, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support new
>> Usenet content.
>
> Oh dear, how sad, never mind.
+1

--
In todays liberal progressive conflict-free education system, everyone
gets full Marx.

On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 01:07:27 -0500, "68g.1499"
<68g.1499@etr6.net> wrote:

> The bean-counters didn't see any profit, so ...

Yes, or the last gray-bearded google engineer who knows NNTP
finally retires.

> On the plus, it means fewer annoying little spammers.

google may not be willing to process all the spam complaints
from NNTP peers (our usenet providers).
--
Kees Nuyt

On 1/31/2024 5:32 PM, Kees Nuyt wrote:

> google may not be willing to process all the spam complaints
> from NNTP peers (our usenet providers).

did they ever? because it certainly didn't look like they did.

In article <7d12b7c7-1764-40cb-ac2c-a602fc55d5d3n@googlegroups.com>,
Mike W <pencoys@gmail.com> wrote:
>Just seen this while reading Groups online...
>
>Effective February 22, 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.

Oh no! Anyway...

https://yewtu.be/watch?v=CzmXjvj4dik

--
_/_
/ v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
(IIGS( https://alfter.us/ Top-posting!
\_^_/ >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?

On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 01:07:27 -0500, 68g.1499 wrote:

>
> STILL hoping Musk will pick it up in the 'free speech'
> theme.

God I hope not!

If that over-hyped fascist twat ever 'picks it up' he'll turn it into a
RIGHT shitshow.

On 2/4/2024 15:59, Salud wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 01:07:27 -0500, 68g.1499 wrote:
>
>
>>
>> STILL hoping Musk will pick it up in the 'free speech'
>> theme.
>
> God I hope not!
>
> If that over-hyped fascist twat ever 'picks it up' he'll turn it into a
> RIGHT shitshow.
>

Which is somehow worse than the LEFT shitshow that it used to be, and
pretty much still is. Say one of the bad words and see how quick you get
banned.

In article <uUSvN.194490$Lo1.170680@usenetxs.com>,
Salud <news@privacy.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 01:07:27 -0500, 68g.1499 wrote:
> > STILL hoping Musk will pick it up in the 'free speech'
> > theme.

> God I hope not!

You don't like free speech, prefer totalitarian single opinion echo
boxes I take it? You may be more comfortable living in China. :-)

> If that over-hyped fascist twat

Gone straight to name calling ad hominem attack. Can you give
examples of his fascist behaviour?

> ever 'picks it up' he'll turn it into a RIGHT shitshow.

That would make a change from the LEFT shitshow that 9/10 of all the
major network platforms plus TV/press.

:-)

Bob.

In article <uUSvN.194490$Lo1.170680@usenetxs.com>,
Salud <news@privacy.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 01:07:27 -0500, 68g.1499 wrote:
>
>
>>
>> STILL hoping Musk will pick it up in the 'free speech'
>> theme.
>
>God I hope not!
>
>If that over-hyped fascist twat ever 'picks it up' he'll turn it into a
>RIGHT shitshow.

https://p.vitalmx.com/photos/forums/2022/05/25/552135/s1200_everyone_i_dont_like_is_a_nazi_the_emotional_childs_28032035.jpg

--
_/_
/ v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
(IIGS( https://alfter.us/ Top-posting!
\_^_/ >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?

On 05/02/2024 16:08, Scott Alfter wrote:
> In article <uUSvN.194490$Lo1.170680@usenetxs.com>,
> Salud <news@privacy.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 01:07:27 -0500, 68g.1499 wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> STILL hoping Musk will pick it up in the 'free speech'
>>> theme.
>>
>> God I hope not!
>>
>> If that over-hyped fascist twat ever 'picks it up' he'll turn it into a
>> RIGHT shitshow.
>
> https://p.vitalmx.com/photos/forums/2022/05/25/552135/s1200_everyone_i_dont_like_is_a_nazi_the_emotional_childs_28032035.jpg
>
LOL. It's more 'I don't like people telling me what to do. Nazis do that'.

--
It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.
Mark Twain

On Mon, 05 Feb 2024 11:48:17 +0000 (GMT), Bob Latham wrote:

> In article <uUSvN.194490$Lo1.170680@usenetxs.com>,
> Salud <news@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> If that over-hyped fascist twat
>
> Gone straight to name calling ad hominem attack. Can you give examples
> of his fascist behaviour?

Where do we start?

<https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/05/musk-defends-enabling-turkish-censorship-on-twitter-calling-it-his-choice/>
<https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/11/musk-announces-twitter-ban-on-unlabeled-parody-after-celebs-impersonate-him/>
<https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/01/twitter-lifts-political-ad-ban-designed-to-stop-misinformation-spread/>
<https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/01/twitter-retroactively-changes-developer-agreement-to-ban-third-party-clients/>.
<https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/09/musks-x-revokes-paid-blue-check-from-united-auto-workers-after-strike-called/>
<https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/09/as-x-bleeds-cash-musk-threatens-anti-defamation-league-with-defamation-lawsuit/2/>
<https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/08/x-apparently-added-5-second-delay-for-links-to-sites-musk-doesnt-like/>
<https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/12/musk-suspends-nyt-and-wapo-reporters-from-twitter-claims-they-doxxed-him/>

In article <ups29q$h6mt$7@dont-email.me>,
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Feb 2024 11:48:17 +0000 (GMT), Bob Latham wrote:

> > In article <uUSvN.194490$Lo1.170680@usenetxs.com>,
> > Salud <news@privacy.net> wrote:
> >
> >> If that over-hyped fascist twat
> >
> > Gone straight to name calling ad hominem attack. Can you give examples
> > of his fascist behaviour?

> Where do we start?

> <https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/05/musk-defends-enabling-turkish-censorship-on-twitter-calling-it-his-choice/>
> <https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/11/musk-announces-twitter-ban-on-unlabeled-parody-after-celebs-impersonate-him/>
> <https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/01/twitter-lifts-political-ad-ban-designed-to-stop-misinformation-spread/>
> <https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/01/twitter-retroactively-changes-developer-agreement-to-ban-third-party-clients/>.
> <https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/09/musks-x-revokes-paid-blue-check-from-united-auto-workers-after-strike-called/>
> <https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/09/as-x-bleeds-cash-musk-threatens-anti-defamation-league-with-defamation-lawsuit/2/>
> <https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/08/x-apparently-added-5-second-delay-for-links-to-sites-musk-doesnt-like/>
> <https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/12/musk-suspends-nyt-and-wapo-reporters-from-twitter-claims-they-doxxed-him/>

1. Far from convinced that this publication is anything like even
handed. Looks like the Guardian in attitude.

2. I think fascist is a word used primarily as an insult, I don't
think Trump fits the definition at all well. Dictatorial and forcing
suppression of others seems to be a characteristic very much of the
left not the right. Militarism is certainly not a word you can link
to Trump so not an ideal fascist by any means.

I don't like him myself to be honest but he is demonised in the
extreme, the entire judiciary of the USA is out to get him.
The definition of 'moral' has changed. It's no longer what you do
that matters, it's why you do it. Anything, no matter how disgusting
done against Trump is seen as moral and good by the Democrats. Hatred
of Trump is close to destroying any pretence that the USA is
democratic if it hasn't done so already.

Bob.

On 06 Feb 2024 at 17:45:37 GMT, "Bob Latham" <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <ups29q$h6mt$7@dont-email.me>,
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2024 11:48:17 +0000 (GMT), Bob Latham wrote:
>
>>> In article <uUSvN.194490$Lo1.170680@usenetxs.com>,
>>> Salud <news@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If that over-hyped fascist twat
>>>
>>> Gone straight to name calling ad hominem attack. Can you give examples
>>> of his fascist behaviour?
>
>> Where do we start?
>
>> <https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/05/musk-defends-enabling-turkish-censorship-on-twitter-calling-it-his-choice/>
>> <https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/11/musk-announces-twitter-ban-on-unlabeled-parody-after-celebs-impersonate-him/>
>> <https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/01/twitter-lifts-political-ad-ban-designed-to-stop-misinformation-spread/>
>> <https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/01/twitter-retroactively-changes-developer-agreement-to-ban-third-party-clients/>.
>> <https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/09/musks-x-revokes-paid-blue-check-from-united-auto-workers-after-strike-called/>
>> <https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/09/as-x-bleeds-cash-musk-threatens-anti-defamation-league-with-defamation-lawsuit/2/>
>> <https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/08/x-apparently-added-5-second-delay-for-links-to-sites-musk-doesnt-like/>
>> <https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/12/musk-suspends-nyt-and-wapo-reporters-from-twitter-claims-they-doxxed-him/>
>
> 1. Far from convinced that this publication is anything like even
> handed. Looks like the Guardian in attitude.
>
> 2. I think fascist is a word used primarily as an insult, I don't
> think Trump fits the definition at all well.

It doesn't. A much better fit to fascism is BLM, Extinction rebellion, Greta,
etc etc. The real problem with Trump is that he is stupid. But there again,
the Democrats in the US have only themselves to blame for the rise of Trump:
they've spent the last several years sneering at and belittling the lower and
lower-middle class in the US. Which has now had enough of it.

--
Tim

On 06/02/2024 17:45, Bob Latham wrote:
> Anything, no matter how disgusting done against Trump is seen as
> moral and good by the Democrats. Hatred of Trump is close to
> destroying any pretence that the USA is democratic if it hasn't done
> so already.
>
That is what worries me. It started in the UK with Blair, who defended
supporting the USA using faked dossiers to bring the UK parliament
onside with the famous 'I believed what I was doing was right'...
It was illegal, it was a high level state crime to deceive parliament,
but as long as he believed it was right, then it was OK.

--
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such
time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic
and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for
the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the
truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

Joseph Goebbels

On Tue, 06 Feb 2024 17:45:37 +0000 (GMT)
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

> done against Trump is seen as moral and good by the Democrats.

It is a sad commentary on the United States that out of over 340
million people Biden and Trump are their options for leaders, are they
*really* the best the country has to offer ?

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
For forms of government let fools contest
Whate're is best administered is best - Alexander Pope

On 06 Feb 2024 at 18:14:42 GMT, "Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net>
wrote:

> On Tue, 06 Feb 2024 17:45:37 +0000 (GMT)
> Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> done against Trump is seen as moral and good by the Democrats.
>
> It is a sad commentary on the United States that out of over 340
> million people Biden and Trump are their options for leaders, are they
> *really* the best the country has to offer ?

Well they are good at cutting off their noses to spite their face:

1) Not controlling guns severely

2) Believing *rigidly* in the Constitution, instead of being more flexible
about it

3) Allowing any tuppenny-ha'penny jurisdiction to "incorporate" (whatever that
means) and thus have its own police department and mayor - with the chief of
the former being elected like the latter. A good recipe for corruption and
incompetence. The US has over 15,000 police departments for 350 million
people, we have 45 for 60 million.

4) Having judges be elected, and having them be allowed to decide policy
matters such as abortion based on some spurious interpretation of the
Constitution, instead of such questions being decided by the legislatures,
where they belong.

5) Allowing political advertising on TV and radio.

I expect there are others.

--
Tim

On Tue, 06 Feb 2024 17:45:37 +0000 (GMT), Bob Latham wrote:

> In article <ups29q$h6mt$7@dont-email.me>,
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2024 11:48:17 +0000 (GMT), Bob Latham wrote:
>
>> > In article <uUSvN.194490$Lo1.170680@usenetxs.com>,
>> > Salud <news@privacy.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> If that over-hyped fascist twat
>> >
>> > Gone straight to name calling ad hominem attack. Can you give examples
>> > of his fascist behaviour?
>
>> Where do we start?
>
>> <https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/05/musk-defends-enabling-turkish-censorship-on-twitter-calling-it-his-choice/>
>> <https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/11/musk-announces-twitter-ban-on-unlabeled-parody-after-celebs-impersonate-him/>
>> <https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/01/twitter-lifts-political-ad-ban-designed-to-stop-misinformation-spread/>
>> <https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/01/twitter-retroactively-changes-developer-agreement-to-ban-third-party-clients/>.
>> <https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/09/musks-x-revokes-paid-blue-check-from-united-auto-workers-after-strike-called/>
>> <https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/09/as-x-bleeds-cash-musk-threatens-anti-defamation-league-with-defamation-lawsuit/2/>
>> <https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/08/x-apparently-added-5-second-delay-for-links-to-sites-musk-doesnt-like/>
>> <https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/12/musk-suspends-nyt-and-wapo-reporters-from-twitter-claims-they-doxxed-him/>
>
> 1. Far from convinced that this publication is anything like even
> handed. Looks like the Guardian in attitude.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is a textbook example of what we call
“circular reasoning”.

Re: Re: Google Groups
By: Ahem A Rivet's Shot to Bob Latham on Tue Feb 06 2024 06:14 pm

340 million people that don't want to enter politics and run for the highest
position in the land, because they don't want their entire lives/misfortunes
and mistakes dragged through mud. It's just not worth the price I guess.

Mickey
Mick Manning
Central Ontario Remote Synchro
centralontarioremote.com:23
-------------------------------

In article <l2fnmrFugagU1@mid.individual.net>,
TimS <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
>Well they are good at cutting off their noses to spite their face:
>
>1) Not controlling guns severely

....because that's working so well for you. /rolleyes

Take out the blue shithole cities from our crime stats and they're no worse
than yours. Probably better, actually. Those blue shitholes, BTW, already
have gun laws much closer to what you'd want. Again, how's that working out
for them?

>2) Believing *rigidly* in the Constitution, instead of being more flexible
>about it

That "flexibility" is what has landed us in our current mess. It's a short
document...maybe three or four pages, written in plain-enough English that
there ought not to be nearly as much disagreement over what it means as
there has been. I chalk that up to a group of politicians who seek to
obfuscate and gaslight...mostly with "D"s after their names, though there
are more than a few with "R" after their names who I wouldn't trust as far
as I can throw them either.

Given that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, it follows
that sharply curtailing the power the government has over the people would
serve well to limit the extent of corruption.

>3) Allowing any tuppenny-ha'penny jurisdiction to "incorporate" (whatever that
>means) and thus have its own police department and mayor - with the chief of
>the former being elected like the latter. A good recipe for corruption and
>incompetence. The US has over 15,000 police departments for 350 million
>people, we have 45 for 60 million.

Police chiefs generally aren't elected. They're appointed by mayors and/or
city councils, to whom they're beholden. Sheriffs are elected, usually on a
countywide basis. There are some exceptions here and there...here in Las
Vegas, the city police department and the county sheriff's department merged
in the early '70s, so we have a police department headed up by an elected
sheriff.

>4) Having judges be elected, and having them be allowed to decide policy
>matters such as abortion based on some spurious interpretation of the
>Constitution, instead of such questions being decided by the legislatures,
>where they belong.

The bigger problem, especially at the federal level, is the unaccountable
administrative state. Congress has mostly abdicated its responsibility and
let organizations like the EPA and ATF do pretty much whatever they want.
At least if an elected judge proves himself to be a total fuckup, there's a
chance that the voters might shitcan him the next time he's up for
reelection. (Practice might have some variance from theory in this regard,
given how many judges run unopposed.)

>5) Allowing political advertising on TV and radio.

I'm not sure I'd consider that the problem so much as that they get away
with blatant lies without any consequence. Theoretically, the voters would
throw the bums out. In practice, most people seem to be of the mindset that
while other people's representatives are scumbags and reprobates, theirs are
as pure as the wind-driven snow. Why this is the case is a mystery.

--
_/_
/ v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
(IIGS( https://alfter.us/ Top-posting!
\_^_/ >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?

On 06/02/2024 18:18, TimS wrote:
> A much better fit to fascism is BLM, Extinction rebellion, Greta,
> etc etc. The real problem with Trump is that he is stupid. But there again,
> the Democrats in the US have only themselves to blame for the rise of Trump:
> they've spent the last several years sneering at and belittling the lower and
> lower-middle class in the US. Which has now had enough of it.

That's probably as close to the truth as you can get from here.

--
Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the
gospel of envy.

Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

Winston Churchill

On Wed, 07 Feb 2024 04:52:58 GMT, Scott Alfter wrote:

> In article <l2fnmrFugagU1@mid.individual.net>,
> TimS <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
>>Well they are good at cutting off their noses to spite their face:
>>
>>1) Not controlling guns severely
>
> ...because that's working so well for you. /rolleyes

It’s worked really well in Australia. That’s what scares the US gun nuts.

On Wed, 07 Feb 2024 04:52:58 GMT
scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us (Scott Alfter) wrote:

> In article <l2fnmrFugagU1@mid.individual.net>,
> TimS <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
> >Well they are good at cutting off their noses to spite their face:
> >
> >1) Not controlling guns severely
>
> ...because that's working so well for you. /rolleyes

Nobody here sees their child die because someone back along the
road got angry and missed when they shot at the driver who annoyed them.
Nobody here has their child die while trying on clothes in a department
store because a cop pulled a gun in a mall and missed. But the real kicker
is in here:

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/school-shootings-by-country

Between 2009 and 2018 the USA had 288 school shootings, the next
country down the table (Mexico) had 8. Only 9 countries had more than one
and only twenty countries had any. There were a total of 42 in the rest of
the world compared to the 288 in the USA.

America most certainly does have a gun problem.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
For forms of government let fools contest
Whate're is best administered is best - Alexander Pope