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

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)

"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

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

"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.

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

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

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

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

"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