If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
It's been a long, long time...
On 4/10/2010 9:51 AM, Nick Knight wrote:
I still follow a few groups, but not anything like in the past. Volume may still be up by count, and/or by bandwidth, but value-per-byte certainly isn't. IMNSHO, of course. I did very quick lookaround, and just about all the statistics, analyses, and so on about Usenet are from five to ten years ago. The Wikipedia entry indicates Usenet traffic is still increasing but it's largely a result of "massive automated spamming and an increase in the use of .binaries newsgroups in which large files are often posted publicly." -- Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
It's been a long, long time...
Bruce Remick wrote:
"Nick Knight" wrote in message [perform mercy snippage here] Five paragraphs of your personal creed chitchat containing nothing coin-related? So you thought a "long winded rant" of someone else's views was irritating, eh. I just can't resist citing the standard "pot-kettle...." thing here. Bruce, it wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that you and I are the two "lifers" that Nick was talking about. Speaking only for myself, if that be true, I wear it as a badge of nobility, and may in fact start using "de" when I sign off, in order to flaunt my exalted status. James de Orange Jumpsuit (actually, that should be d'Orange, but I'd better not press my luck) |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
It's been a long, long time...
"Nick Knight" wrote in message ... In , on 04/09/2010 at 01:14 AM, Reid Goldsborough said: #3 is eminently valid as a reason to explain why many people have left permanently. But to say that #1 trumps #2 is absurd, Reid. And WTH are you to determine what is "excessive"? [...] It's also my observation that the excessive chitchat is more serious a problem because it takes up far more verbal space and is the more likely reason any given on-topic conversation is diverted, though it's not characterized of course by the nasty emotional violence of flaming. James the Chitchatter You're right about that, I'm afraid, and are more likely than anyone here to be the first to respond to a thread, as far as I can see, and more likely than anyone to divert it to whatever you happen to want to chat about. You ask "WTH" am I to determine what's excessive chitchat. Well, I'm a long-time participant here, and like all participants I have to right to offer opinion, I agree completely, at least with how detrimental the chit-chatting is. It's ironic that the abusers are also so verbose when defending their practice. I see already where this thread (or was it one of the other few that I am currently following?) has already bent towards a grammar discussion, complete with a slang-like bad example competition. Wow. I am a huge advocate of kill-filing. I usually killfile when someone is nasty or pigheadedly stuck on some moronic personal mission that isn't supported by logic or real-world example. However, more recently, I've been plonking the chit-chatters. And it's worked quite well, IMO. Perhaps others have, too, and this might explain why, when someone posts a genuine on-topic article, few respond. Personally, I don't want to invest the time in trying to distill value from the static. NOTE that I would and have appreciated the genuine, on-topic posts. It's just too hard to find them amongst the clutter. Or, when found in the past, they turn to quickly to trips into the weeds. I have permanently killfiled the top 2 chit-chatters here. I had temporarily killfiled 3rd place, but I see that has expired. Yet, I'm greated with a long-winded rant from that poster giving us his views on the history of Usenet, all while trying to ultimately defend the practice. I'll resist the temptation to re-plonk, at least for the weekend, but the other 2 started as temporaries a couple of times. WTH are they for assuming their pointy opinions on chitchatting are shared with others? Simply because there is more than one and they can fuel each others' fancy doesn't make it an acceptible practice. I love the justification offered: "If we don't chit-chat (er, or offer off-topic posts(, volume drops and there seems to be a void". So, instead, lets pump up the volume and make it difficult to find anything of value. In my opinion backed by many years of personal experience, Usenet's value HAS deteriorated. I can't speak to the overall trends in volume, except to say that I've abandoned online technical discussions that used to prove so valuable. It's much easier to google for answers now and avoid the influx of static. I still follow a few groups, but not anything like in the past. Volume may still be up by count, and/or by bandwidth, but value-per-byte certainly isn't. IMNSHO, of course. Nick I have over 500 residents in my kill file and it may grow by one or to fairly soon. Billy |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
It's been a long, long time...
note.boy wrote:
"Nick Knight" wrote in message ... In , on 04/09/2010 at 01:14 AM, Reid Goldsborough said: #3 is eminently valid as a reason to explain why many people have left permanently. But to say that #1 trumps #2 is absurd, Reid. And WTH are you to determine what is "excessive"? [...] It's also my observation that the excessive chitchat is more serious a problem because it takes up far more verbal space and is the more likely reason any given on-topic conversation is diverted, though it's not characterized of course by the nasty emotional violence of flaming. James the Chitchatter You're right about that, I'm afraid, and are more likely than anyone here to be the first to respond to a thread, as far as I can see, and more likely than anyone to divert it to whatever you happen to want to chat about. You ask "WTH" am I to determine what's excessive chitchat. Well, I'm a long-time participant here, and like all participants I have to right to offer opinion, I agree completely, at least with how detrimental the chit-chatting is. It's ironic that the abusers are also so verbose when defending their practice. I see already where this thread (or was it one of the other few that I am currently following?) has already bent towards a grammar discussion, complete with a slang-like bad example competition. Wow. I am a huge advocate of kill-filing. I usually killfile when someone is nasty or pigheadedly stuck on some moronic personal mission that isn't supported by logic or real-world example. However, more recently, I've been plonking the chit-chatters. And it's worked quite well, IMO. Perhaps others have, too, and this might explain why, when someone posts a genuine on-topic article, few respond. Personally, I don't want to invest the time in trying to distill value from the static. NOTE that I would and have appreciated the genuine, on-topic posts. It's just too hard to find them amongst the clutter. Or, when found in the past, they turn to quickly to trips into the weeds. I have permanently killfiled the top 2 chit-chatters here. I had temporarily killfiled 3rd place, but I see that has expired. Yet, I'm greated with a long-winded rant from that poster giving us his views on the history of Usenet, all while trying to ultimately defend the practice. I'll resist the temptation to re-plonk, at least for the weekend, but the other 2 started as temporaries a couple of times. WTH are they for assuming their pointy opinions on chitchatting are shared with others? Simply because there is more than one and they can fuel each others' fancy doesn't make it an acceptible practice. I love the justification offered: "If we don't chit-chat (er, or offer off-topic posts(, volume drops and there seems to be a void". So, instead, lets pump up the volume and make it difficult to find anything of value. In my opinion backed by many years of personal experience, Usenet's value HAS deteriorated. I can't speak to the overall trends in volume, except to say that I've abandoned online technical discussions that used to prove so valuable. It's much easier to google for answers now and avoid the influx of static. I still follow a few groups, but not anything like in the past. Volume may still be up by count, and/or by bandwidth, but value-per-byte certainly isn't. IMNSHO, of course. Nick I have over 500 residents in my kill file and it may grow by one or to fairly soon. Billy OMG, size matters! James de Yardstick |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
It's been a long, long time...
"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message ... Bruce Remick wrote: "Nick Knight" wrote in message [perform mercy snippage here] Five paragraphs of your personal creed chitchat containing nothing coin-related? So you thought a "long winded rant" of someone else's views was irritating, eh. I just can't resist citing the standard "pot-kettle...." thing here. Bruce, it wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that you and I are the two "lifers" that Nick was talking about. Speaking only for myself, if that be true, I wear it as a badge of nobility, and may in fact start using "de" when I sign off, in order to flaunt my exalted status. Hard to tell, although I can't imagine Nick putting me in that category without the obligatory pronouncement to the group. Makes me wonder though if one is plonked and the plonker doesn't announce it, is it really official? And might there be a Plonk Purgatory? Woops! I do believe I've chit-chatted here. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
It's been a long, long time...
On Apr 10, 3:29*pm, "Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote:
Bruce, it wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that you and I are the two "lifers" that Nick was talking about. *Speaking only for myself, if that be true, I wear it as a badge of nobility, and may in fact start using "de" when I sign off, in order to flaunt my exalted status. James de Orange Jumpsuit (actually, that should be d'Orange, but I'd better not press my luck) Of course, my favorite sobriquet (numismatically) would be from Mel Brooks History of the World, where Harvey Korman was 'Count de Money' Jud -who thinks that 'de' means a German website |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
It's been a long, long time...
In , on
04/11/2010 at 09:47 AM, Jud said: Of course, my favorite sobriquet (numismatically) would be from Mel Brooks History of the World, where Harvey Korman was 'Count de Money' A stetch, but "ok" Tell James to let the "nobility" begin. I find it very odd that there is/was any doubt about who the 2 most verbose non-coin chit-chatters are/were (past tense used alternatively, as I'm relatively free from it now, all with 2 simple killfile entries). I'm sure it's not really that unobvious as long as you're not too busy proving the point while trying to justify it. If the self-declared-and-inflicted crown fits ... I bow to his written eminence-ness. He will, however, remain mostly invisible to me. I'm not trying to be nasty. I'm just not at all interested. Nick |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
It's been a long, long time...
In , on 04/10/2010
at 09:43 PM, "note.boy" said: I have over 500 residents in my kill file and it may grow by one or to fairly soon. Billy You've got me beat big-time! Surface checking, I've got a total of 98 entries currently in my combined watch/kill list for both email AND newsgroups. This includes watch entries for many email addresses that would otherwise be labeled spam. But as I already admittied, my newsgroup use is way down, so the only new news-related kills I add are from 1 of a short hardful of areas. Nick |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
It's been a long, long time...
Nick Knight wrote:
In , on 04/11/2010 at 09:47 AM, Jud said: Of course, my favorite sobriquet (numismatically) would be from Mel Brooks History of the World, where Harvey Korman was 'Count de Money' A stetch, but "ok" Tell James to let the "nobility" begin. I find it very odd that there is/was any doubt about who the 2 most verbose non-coin chit-chatters are/were (past tense used alternatively, as I'm relatively free from it now, all with 2 simple killfile entries). I'm sure it's not really that unobvious as long as you're not too busy proving the point while trying to justify it. Jud, your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to plonk me in the name of Nick Knight, who apparently thinks that his opaque references to a couple of chitchatters are intuitively transparent to all but the most casual observer. OK, I'm ready, hit me, let's get this rat-killing overwith. If the self-declared-and-inflicted crown fits ... I bow to his written eminence-ness. He will, however, remain mostly invisible to me. I'm not trying to be nasty. I'm just not at all interested. Mostly? James the Invisible Man |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
It's been a long, long time...
"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message ... note.boy wrote: "Nick Knight" wrote in message ... In , on 04/09/2010 at 01:14 AM, Reid Goldsborough said: #3 is eminently valid as a reason to explain why many people have left permanently. But to say that #1 trumps #2 is absurd, Reid. And WTH are you to determine what is "excessive"? [...] It's also my observation that the excessive chitchat is more serious a problem because it takes up far more verbal space and is the more likely reason any given on-topic conversation is diverted, though it's not characterized of course by the nasty emotional violence of flaming. James the Chitchatter You're right about that, I'm afraid, and are more likely than anyone here to be the first to respond to a thread, as far as I can see, and more likely than anyone to divert it to whatever you happen to want to chat about. You ask "WTH" am I to determine what's excessive chitchat. Well, I'm a long-time participant here, and like all participants I have to right to offer opinion, I agree completely, at least with how detrimental the chit-chatting is. It's ironic that the abusers are also so verbose when defending their practice. I see already where this thread (or was it one of the other few that I am currently following?) has already bent towards a grammar discussion, complete with a slang-like bad example competition. Wow. I am a huge advocate of kill-filing. I usually killfile when someone is nasty or pigheadedly stuck on some moronic personal mission that isn't supported by logic or real-world example. However, more recently, I've been plonking the chit-chatters. And it's worked quite well, IMO. Perhaps others have, too, and this might explain why, when someone posts a genuine on-topic article, few respond. Personally, I don't want to invest the time in trying to distill value from the static. NOTE that I would and have appreciated the genuine, on-topic posts. It's just too hard to find them amongst the clutter. Or, when found in the past, they turn to quickly to trips into the weeds. I have permanently killfiled the top 2 chit-chatters here. I had temporarily killfiled 3rd place, but I see that has expired. Yet, I'm greated with a long-winded rant from that poster giving us his views on the history of Usenet, all while trying to ultimately defend the practice. I'll resist the temptation to re-plonk, at least for the weekend, but the other 2 started as temporaries a couple of times. WTH are they for assuming their pointy opinions on chitchatting are shared with others? Simply because there is more than one and they can fuel each others' fancy doesn't make it an acceptible practice. I love the justification offered: "If we don't chit-chat (er, or offer off-topic posts(, volume drops and there seems to be a void". So, instead, lets pump up the volume and make it difficult to find anything of value. In my opinion backed by many years of personal experience, Usenet's value HAS deteriorated. I can't speak to the overall trends in volume, except to say that I've abandoned online technical discussions that used to prove so valuable. It's much easier to google for answers now and avoid the influx of static. I still follow a few groups, but not anything like in the past. Volume may still be up by count, and/or by bandwidth, but value-per-byte certainly isn't. IMNSHO, of course. Nick I have over 500 residents in my kill file and it may grow by one or to fairly soon. Billy OMG, size matters! James de Yardstick Some are probably one time troll posters but in they go, I take no chances of seeing more of their nonsense. Billy |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
long time lurker introduction | builderr | General Discussion | 0 | October 28th 09 04:21 AM |
I'm back after a long time and would like to exchange postcars again | E. Bogeholt | General Discussion | 0 | November 14th 04 03:42 PM |
best day in a long time | dahoov2 | Autographs | 6 | December 16th 03 04:02 AM |
1.6% daily for a good long time | Truesys | Paper Money | 1 | December 4th 03 04:22 AM |
You know you are a long time collector when...... | John Stone | Coins | 18 | October 15th 03 05:18 PM |