I'll get back to everyone who posted in my previous thread, but I need
to know if you all think Usenet is social media?
Or Social Media? Which?

And would you answer the same for Reddit?

They're social because they involve people, but people don't make
friends on any of them, normally. And people don't talk about little
or even big things that happen in their personal lives much, and when
once in a while I do, most people are bored and ignore them in any
replies they make.

To me that means it's not social.

But if some webpage that matters to me asks how I heard about it, and I
say "internet" but NOT through social media, they will likely think its
a page with good or bad informative text but no way for readers to
reply. That Usenet and Reddit do allow replies, depend on replies, sort
of makes them *social* media.

So all in all, in your opinion, are Usenet and Reddit social media?

On 12/16/2024 1:46 PM, micky wrote:

Why do you insist on posting off-topic junk to otherwise usable groups
and cross post them to the rat nest of alt.home.repair?

I'll answer your question. No. Usenet is usenet, and who gives two
shit about reddit!

--
I Stand With Israel!

On 12/16/2024 12:46 PM, micky wrote:
> I'll get back to everyone who posted in my previous thread, but I need
> to know if you all think Usenet is social media?
> Or Social Media? Which?

That's just a caps thing.

>
> And would you answer the same for Reddit?

Yes.

> They're social because they involve people, but people don't make
> friends on any of them, normally. And people don't talk about little
> or even big things that happen in their personal lives much, and when
> once in a while I do, most people are bored and ignore them in any
> replies they make.

You haven't been on RFC much have ya?

It's a loony bin of personal over-sharing and mandates of control.

> To me that means it's not social.

But a library is social and no one speaks much.

> But if some webpage that matters to me asks how I heard about it, and I
> say "internet" but NOT through social media, they will likely think its
> a page with good or bad informative text but no way for readers to
> reply. That Usenet and Reddit do allow replies, depend on replies, sort
> of makes them *social* media.

Yes.

Uselessnet now un-moderated - yay!

Reddit a bastion of censors.

Boo!

> So all in all, in your opinion, are Usenet and Reddit social media?

They are, but uselessnet is like CB radio, long since leapfrogged by new
band spectrums and better equipment.

On 12/16/24 02:46 PM, micky wrote:
> I'll get back to everyone who posted in my previous thread, but I need
> to know if you all think Usenet is social media?
> Or Social Media? Which?
>
> And would you answer the same for Reddit?
>
> They're social because they involve people, but people don't make
> friends on any of them, normally. And people don't talk about little
> or even big things that happen in their personal lives much, and when
> once in a while I do, most people are bored and ignore them in any
> replies they make.
>
> To me that means it's not social.
>
> But if some webpage that matters to me asks how I heard about it, and I
> say "internet" but NOT through social media, they will likely think its
> a page with good or bad informative text but no way for readers to
> reply. That Usenet and Reddit do allow replies, depend on replies, sort
> of makes them *social* media.
>
> So all in all, in your opinion, are Usenet and Reddit social media?
CoPilot say:
Usenet is not considered traditional social media, but it does share some characteristics with it.
Usenet is a worldwide distributed discussion system that dates back to the early days of the
internet. It's more like a collection of newsgroups where users can post messages and read others'
posts on various topics.

Here's how Usenet compares to modern social media:

Structure: Usenet is organized into newsgroups, similar to forums, each dedicated to specific
topics. Social media platforms, on the other hand, often use more fluid structures like timelines,
feeds, and groups.

Interaction: Users on Usenet interact by posting messages (called articles) and responding to them,
similar to how users comment on social media posts. However, Usenet lacks many of the features found
on modern social media platforms, such as likes, shares, and multimedia content.

Anonymity: Usenet users can post messages without revealing their real identities, while social
media platforms often encourage users to create profiles with personal information.

Content: Usenet focuses more on text-based discussions, whereas social media platforms support a
wide range of content types, including images, videos, and live streams.

In essence, while Usenet provides a platform for online discussions and information sharing, it
operates differently from modern social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram.

--
Linux Mint 22, Cinnamon 6.2.9, Kernel 6.8.0-51-generic
Thunderbird 128.5.2esr, Mozilla Firefox 133.0.3
Alan K.

On 16.12.24 20:46, micky wrote:
> So all in all, in your opinion, are Usenet and Reddit social media?

You are getting increasingly senile: This is OT to the limit.

--
"Roma locuta, causa finita." (Augustinus)

In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Mon, 16 Dec 2024 14:22:28 -0600, sticks
<wolverine01@charter.net> wrote:

>On 12/16/2024 1:46 PM, micky wrote:
>
>Why do you insist on posting off-topic junk to otherwise usable groups

It's not off-topic. The topic was usenet.

>and cross post them to the rat nest of alt.home.repair?
>
>I'll answer your question. No. Usenet is usenet, and who gives two
>shit about reddit!

On 12/16/2024 3:12 PM, micky wrote:
> In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Mon, 16 Dec 2024 14:22:28 -0600, sticks
> <wolverine01@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> On 12/16/2024 1:46 PM, micky wrote:
>>
>> Why do you insist on posting off-topic junk to otherwise usable groups
>
> It's not off-topic. The topic was usenet.

Bullshit. Usenet is the forum. The topic of a.c.o.WINDOWS-10 is
obviously windows 10. There will always be thread drift and normal
people soon realize it and try to control themselves. That's not what
happened here, or what you typically do. This was an original post
totally off topic to windows, android, and firefox. The only place it
fits in is alt.home.repair since this is the kind of shit they do all
the time in that group. Get some manners.

--
I Stand With Israel!

On 2024-12-16 22:12, micky wrote:
> In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Mon, 16 Dec 2024 14:22:28 -0600, sticks
> <wolverine01@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> On 12/16/2024 1:46 PM, micky wrote:
>>
>> Why do you insist on posting off-topic junk to otherwise usable groups
>
> It's not off-topic. The topic was usenet.

Which is offtopic here. The topic here is only Windows 10.

If using the other groups, it can be firefox, android, or repairs at
home. Usenet is not the topic of any of those groups.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 12/16/24 15:48, Alan K. wrote:

> Usenet is not considered traditional social media, but it does share
> some characteristics with it. Usenet is a worldwide distributed
> discussion system that dates back to the early days of the internet.
> It's more like a collection of newsgroups where users can post messages
> and read others' posts on various topics.

It's not more LIKE a collection of newsgroups, it IS a collection of
newsgroups and it cannot even be mentioned in the same sentence with any
of them other 'orifices'.

> Anonymity: Usenet users can post messages without revealing their real
> identities, while social media platforms often encourage users to create
> profiles with personal information.

This has got to be the attribute that makes THE difference and is why
millions prefer it and why many agencies have been trying and continue
to try to destroy it.

--
If DIY were a religion, hmmm ...I just made it one.

On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 14:46:26 -0500, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com>
wrote:

>I'll get back to everyone who posted in my previous thread, but I need
>to know if you all think Usenet is social media?
> Or Social Media? Which?

Usenet is indeed a social medium, and more social than most other
social media, because one's communication is not controlled and
manipulated by algorithms.

>And would you answer the same for Reddit?

I know nothing about Reddit.

>
>They're social because they involve people, but people don't make
>friends on any of them, normally. And people don't talk about little
>or even big things that happen in their personal lives much, and when
>once in a while I do, most people are bored and ignore them in any
>replies they make.
>
>To me that means it's not social.

There was a time when Usenet was primarily academic rather than
social, but that time is long past. And there always was a social
element. Interactions between people vary depending on the nature of
particular newsgroups, but it is the same with other social media
platforms like Facebook.

>
>But if some webpage that matters to me asks how I heard about it, and I
>say "internet" but NOT through social media, they will likely think its
>a page with good or bad informative text but no way for readers to
>reply. That Usenet and Reddit do allow replies, depend on replies, sort
>of makes them *social* media.
>
>So all in all, in your opinion, are Usenet and Reddit social media?

--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 16:12:08 -0500, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com>
wrote:

>In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Mon, 16 Dec 2024 14:22:28 -0600, sticks
><wolverine01@charter.net> wrote:
>
>>On 12/16/2024 1:46 PM, micky wrote:
>>
>>Why do you insist on posting off-topic junk to otherwise usable groups
>
>It's not off-topic. The topic was usenet.

But Windows 10 is not Usenet.

Try news.groups
and news.groups.questions

I was going to set more appropriate follow-ups, but want' allowed to,
so sorry to all the inappropriate groups.

--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

In message <c701mj1ok5mue46nmiedj4ve1qcindpiqm@4ax.com>, micky
<NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> writes
>I'll get back to everyone who posted in my previous thread, but I need
>to know if you all think Usenet is social media?
> Or Social Media? Which?
>
>And would you answer the same for Reddit?
>
>They're social because they involve people, but people don't make
>friends on any of them, normally. And people don't talk about little
>or even big things that happen in their personal lives much, and when
>once in a while I do, most people are bored and ignore them in any
>replies they make.
>
>To me that means it's not social.
>
>But if some webpage that matters to me asks how I heard about it, and I
>say "internet" but NOT through social media, they will likely think its
>a page with good or bad informative text but no way for readers to
>reply. That Usenet and Reddit do allow replies, depend on replies, sort
>of makes them *social* media.
>
>So all in all, in your opinion, are Usenet and Reddit social media?

Yes. Even if people don't make friends, they are interacting with one
another ,and that makes it social IMO. Not that I've ever used this
new-fangled Reddit thing. :)

[rm newsgroup where it seems most off-topic.]
--
John Hall
"I look upon it, that he who does not mind his belly,
will hardly mind anything else."
Dr Samuel Johnson (1709-84)

In alt.home.repair, on Tue, 17 Dec 2024 10:14:39 +0200, Steve Hayes
<hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 14:46:26 -0500, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com>
>wrote:
>
>>I'll get back to everyone who posted in my previous thread, but I need
>>to know if you all think Usenet is social media?
>> Or Social Media? Which?
>
>Usenet is indeed a social medium, and more social than most other
>social media, because one's communication is not controlled and
>manipulated by algorithms.
>
>>And would you answer the same for Reddit?

>I know nothing about Reddit

It does have loads of control. I got 6 emails from bots last night
saying that one or another post had been cancelled because I was new and
they said new people often posted spam (even if you read it it clearly
was on topic and not spam) , but I could object I'd only posted 2,
maybe 3, things (one twice with changes, but I still don't know how it
got to six.

And I still don't know if my question about noise filters for tv
antennas is "consumer" electonics or like how to find bad diodes, which
would be on topic.

OTOH, they have a "subreddit" called spinalcordstimulator and I don't
know where else in the whole world you could find people to discuss
that, and it's a mucho important topic to those who have one or are
about to.

It is apparently very easy to start a "subreddit" on maybe any topic. I
don't know where the bots come from or the humans who eventually oversee
them.
Even alt ngs were never as easy to start. OTOH, and this is so
important, it's so very easy with a ng reader to look at all the topics
and choose those that interests you. I never found a good medical ng --
was there one? -- but but you could have one for all medicine, or one
for each standard medical specialty.
And with usenet, all the quesstions are there and all the replies.
With all the other fora, they send you an email, you have to open the
mail, click on it, and devot a browswer tab to it. Plus the one or two
you had to have to ask the question, and then if you want to look at it
again, you have to find the tab, And I have far too many tabs already..
Web fora are so inefficient. With a newsgroup reader, you can find a
thread easily. Plus there is no moderation except in
misc.legal.moderated and maybe a few more I've never noticed.

And I haven't found a list of all the subs. Instead I google a topic
with the word reddit to see the names that come up. But I did that last
night: TV interference, subreddit. and most hits were for cutthecord,
but when I posted there, the bot cancelled me twice, I do't remember
why.

The suggestions of how to find the right sub are lengthy and some are
absurd,
https://old.reddit.com/r/findareddit/comments/12bkfp/meta_guide_to_finding_subreddits/

Different subreddits have different rules. Spinalcordstiumulator has
never cancelled me. .
..
>
>>
>>They're social because they involve people, but people don't make
>>friends on any of them, normally. And people don't talk about little
>>or even big things that happen in their personal lives much, and when
>>once in a while I do, most people are bored and ignore them in any
>>replies they make.
>>
>>To me that means it's not social.
>
>There was a time when Usenet was primarily academic rather than
>social, but that time is long past. And there always was a social
>element. Interactions between people vary depending on the nature of
>particular newsgroups, but it is the same with other social media
>platforms like Facebook.

I red one newsgroup that actually had two get togethers over a couple
years. ONe in NYC that I went to from Baltimore and about 15 of us had
dinner together, and one I could not go to. But people wandered away
and the ggoup folded. I guess that one was social. A travel forum,
what's the big onet called, TripAdvisor, had a get-together in another
country and about 6 of us went to a restaurant. About half were locals
one of whom answered 25% of all the questions asked, and half tourists.
>
>
>>
>>But if some webpage that matters to me asks how I heard about it, and I
>>say "internet" but NOT through social media, they will likely think its
>>a page with good or bad informative text but no way for readers to
>>reply. That Usenet and Reddit do allow replies, depend on replies, sort
>>of makes them *social* media.
>>
>>So all in all, in your opinion, are Usenet and Reddit social media?

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Tue, 17 Dec 2024 10:20:45 +0200, Steve
Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 16:12:08 -0500, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com>
>wrote:
>
>>In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Mon, 16 Dec 2024 14:22:28 -0600, sticks
>><wolverine01@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On 12/16/2024 1:46 PM, micky wrote:
>>>
>>>Why do you insist on posting off-topic junk to otherwise usable groups
>>
>>It's not off-topic. The topic was usenet.
>
>But Windows 10 is not Usenet.
>
>Try news.groups
>and news.groups.questions

Thanks, not a bad suggestion and clearly an attempt to be helpful, but I
don't read those groups and don't want to start for one question. I
don't know the people in them and don't know whose judgment to respect.

>I was going to set more appropriate follow-ups, but want' allowed to,
>so sorry to all the inappropriate groups.

This subthread reminds of when there was a newly formed moderated forum
on, say, Of Mice and Men, and the new moderators were ridiculously over-
strict, and people tried to post polite questions and complaints and the
mods rejected them all saying moderation was off-topic. We all thought
it was, say, an on-topic meta-topic, by definition. I think the same
thing here.

On 12/17/2024 5:33 AM, micky wrote:
> In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Tue, 17 Dec 2024 10:20:45 +0200, Steve
> Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 16:12:08 -0500, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com>
>> wrote:

>>>
>>> It's not off-topic. The topic was usenet.
>>
>> But Windows 10 is not Usenet.
>>
>> Try news.groups
>> and news.groups.questions
>
> Thanks, not a bad suggestion and clearly an attempt to be helpful, but I
> don't read those groups and don't want to start for one question. I
> don't know the people in them and don't know whose judgment to respect.

What a round about way of saying you're too dumb and lazy to try to do
things properly and you just don't care.

>
>> I was going to set more appropriate follow-ups, but want' allowed to,
>> so sorry to all the inappropriate groups.
>
> This subthread reminds of when there was a newly formed moderated forum
> on, say, Of Mice and Men, and the new moderators were ridiculously over-
> strict, and people tried to post polite questions and complaints and the
> mods rejected them all saying moderation was off-topic. We all thought
> it was, say, an on-topic meta-topic, by definition. I think the same
> thing here.

no you don't. you just don't care that you fill these groups with all
your off-topic posts. You'll prove me right by continuing to do similar
things soon enough.

--
I Stand With Israel!

On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 14:46:26 -0500, micky wrote:

> Newsgroups: alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.home.repair,comp.mobile.android,alt.comp.software.firefox

Followup-To: alt.clueless

(What's 'Usesent'?)

--
s|b

In comp.mobile.android, on Tue, 17 Dec 2024 10:21:12 -0600, sticks
<wolverine01@charter.net> wrote:

>On 12/17/2024 5:33 AM, micky wrote:
>> In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Tue, 17 Dec 2024 10:20:45 +0200, Steve
>> Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 16:12:08 -0500, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com>
>>> wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>> It's not off-topic. The topic was usenet.
>>>
>>> But Windows 10 is not Usenet.
>>>
>>> Try news.groups
>>> and news.groups.questions
>>
>> Thanks, not a bad suggestion and clearly an attempt to be helpful, but I
>> don't read those groups and don't want to start for one question. I
>> don't know the people in them and don't know whose judgment to respect.
>
>What a round about way of saying you're too dumb and lazy to try to do
>things properly and you just don't care.

You don't know me better than I know myself. Those were my real
reasons and don't involve laziness, and you are going by your idea of
what is proper, and I know longer care what you think but I do care
about this ng and all the others. ......

>>> I was going to set more appropriate follow-ups, but want' allowed to,
>>> so sorry to all the inappropriate groups.
>>
>> This subthread reminds of when there was a newly formed moderated forum
>> on, say, Of Mice and Men, and the new moderators were ridiculously over-
>> strict, and people tried to post polite questions and complaints and the
>> mods rejected them all saying moderation was off-topic. We all thought
>> it was, say, an on-topic meta-topic, by definition. I think the same
>> thing here.
>
>no you don't.

You definitely don't know what I think. Why do you imagine you know
what someone else thinks? That's sort of dumb, isn't it?

> you just don't care that you fill these groups with all
>your off-topic posts.

Once every 2 or 3 months or less, by your standards. That's not filling
anything. And you have the opportunity to stop reading after the first
half of the first post, but no, you're still at it. You can even filter
me out. Feel free. I don't remember you ever answering one of my
technical questions, so I have nothing to lose.

> You'll prove me right by continuing to do similar
>things soon enough.

It won't prove a thing.

You didn't seem to notice that my question got several good answers,
from people who either didn't think it is was off topic, or are not so
hide-bound to an on-topic rule, which did not come down from Sinai.

And BTW, the fewest number of replies were in AHR and none were from the
intruder/political spammers from other invading groups, probably because
they don't read AHR directly, they only cross-post to it.

On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 23:23:09 -0500, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com>
wrote:

>>What a round about way of saying you're too dumb and lazy to try to do
>>things properly and you just don't care.
>
>You don't know me better than I know myself. Those were my real
>reasons and don't involve laziness, and you are going by your idea of
>what is proper, and I know longer care what you think but I do care
>about this ng and all the others. ......

Don't feed the trolls.

--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

On Wed, 12/18/2024 11:23 PM, micky wrote:

>
> You didn't seem to notice that my question got several good answers,

USENET has a history and it has a rule set.

And it is NOT social media.

To even answer this question, which is (OT * cross-posted)
is a violation of the rule set.

Groups have a narrow charter. The charter receives a lot
of discussion (during request for comments), because it
defines exactly what is allowed and not allowed. For example,
in order to avoid creating a .forsale group, the charter would
indicate that forsale items were allowed, as long as they were
prefaced with FORSALE: . In this way, the voters who voted
on the charter, could agree or disagree with the definition
of topicality. If the decision by the majority was that
FORSALE was banned, then the charter could specifically
say that such articles are "not allowed". You could not
for example OT: forsale hallicrafters X12 transceiver,
as that is specifically an activity which is "not allowed".
Depending on your administrator, you could lose your
account for doing that (administrators did enforce rules
back then - I nearly got banned once for something pretty
trivial).

There is still a Big-8 Management Board. There are still
people who organize USENET. Even if many of the moving
parts are now missing (FAQ postings for new users,
news.newusers for people who are new to USENET).

One of the original suggestions for USENET, upon first
connecting, was to not post. Just read threads (kibbitz) and
absorb the etiquette. Then, if you had any questions
after viewing thousands of posts, someone could fill
in the details. Not posting was preferable to
a posting etiquette violation. That's how things used to work.

When I first started, I read SunManagers. A question would be
raised. After a week or ten days, with some good answers,
the OP "paid" for the question, by writing a summary post listing
which solutions worked and which solutions did not work.
In this way, the OP paid back the effort people put forward
towards answering a question. Then if you looked at a
thread in SunManagers, it was a "self-contained article".
You were not left wondering what happened to the OP, because
they wrote back and paid their debt.

That's a system that had rules. There were no cookie recipes
or car repairs in SunManagers. Just questions and answers
about Sun Microsystems Unix boxes. Most of the queries and
answers, were from IT class people. People stayed on topic there.
There was no one asking "whether it was snowing where you are".

That's an example of the history of the place.

Paul

On 12/18/2024 10:23 PM, micky wrote:
> In comp.mobile.android, on Tue, 17 Dec 2024 10:21:12 -0600, sticks
> <wolverine01@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> On 12/17/2024 5:33 AM, micky wrote:
>>> In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Tue, 17 Dec 2024 10:20:45 +0200, Steve
>>> Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 16:12:08 -0500, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not off-topic. The topic was usenet.
>>>>
>>>> But Windows 10 is not Usenet.
>>>>
>>>> Try news.groups
>>>> and news.groups.questions
>>>
>>> Thanks, not a bad suggestion and clearly an attempt to be helpful, but I
>>> don't read those groups and don't want to start for one question. I
>>> don't know the people in them and don't know whose judgment to respect.
>>
>> What a round about way of saying you're too dumb and lazy to try to do
>> things properly and you just don't care.
>
> You don't know me better than I know myself. Those were my real
> reasons and don't involve laziness, and you are going by your idea of
> what is proper, and I know longer care what you think but I do care
> about this ng and all the others. ......
>
>>>> I was going to set more appropriate follow-ups, but want' allowed to,
>>>> so sorry to all the inappropriate groups.
>>>
>>> This subthread reminds of when there was a newly formed moderated forum
>>> on, say, Of Mice and Men, and the new moderators were ridiculously over-
>>> strict, and people tried to post polite questions and complaints and the
>>> mods rejected them all saying moderation was off-topic. We all thought
>>> it was, say, an on-topic meta-topic, by definition. I think the same
>>> thing here.
>>
>> no you don't.
>
> You definitely don't know what I think. Why do you imagine you know
> what someone else thinks? That's sort of dumb, isn't it?

What's dumb is you can't remember what you posted already, even though
you quoted it. You said above, you don't want to post to another group
because you're not currently subscribed to it, and you don't know the
people in it. Then you said you wanted to set more *appropriate*
follow-ups, thereby acknowledging you at least kind of know this is the
wrong forum.

>
>> you just don't care that you fill these groups with all
>> your off-topic posts.
>
> Once every 2 or 3 months or less, by your standards. That's not filling
> anything. And you have the opportunity to stop reading after the first
> half of the first post, but no, you're still at it. You can even filter
> me out. Feel free. I don't remember you ever answering one of my
> technical questions, so I have nothing to lose.

That's not how usenet works. There is no requirement to answer
"technical questions." I will probably take your other advice soon
enough, though.

>> You'll prove me right by continuing to do similar
>> things soon enough.
>
> It won't prove a thing.
>
> You didn't seem to notice that my question got several good answers,
> from people who either didn't think it is was off topic, or are not so
> hide-bound to an on-topic rule, which did not come down from Sinai.

Please read Paul's most excellent post in this thread. Maybe coming
from someone you respect a little more might help you with your
comprehension problem.

>
> And BTW, the fewest number of replies were in AHR and none were from the
> intruder/political spammers from other invading groups, probably because
> they don't read AHR directly, they only cross-post to it.

Who cares? Try posting on-topic things there and maybe you'll get more
of a response.

--
I Stand With Israel!

On 12/19/2024 2:50 AM, Paul wrote:
> On Wed, 12/18/2024 11:23 PM, micky wrote:
>
>>
>> You didn't seem to notice that my question got several good answers,
>
> USENET has a history and it has a rule set.
>
> And it is NOT social media.

---snip great stuff---

> That's an example of the history of the place.

What some fail to understand or don't care about, is that if everyone
did what micky and yana2 do these groups would be unusable.
But...they're special.

--
I Stand With Israel!

On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 11:31:28 -0600, sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> wrote:

>On 12/19/2024 2:50 AM, Paul wrote:
>> On Wed, 12/18/2024 11:23 PM, micky wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> You didn't seem to notice that my question got several good answers,
>>
>> USENET has a history and it has a rule set.
>>
>> And it is NOT social media.
>
>---snip great stuff---

Great, but quite incomplete, especially for the issue at hand.

>> That's an example of the history of the place.
>
>What some fail to understand or don't care about, is that if everyone
>did what micky and yana2 do these groups would be unusable.
>But...they're special.

Paul posted about the Big-8 side of the house, but over here in alt.* land,
about the only thing we share is the concept of a charter. Enforcement is left
to peer pressure, (what we're seeing in this sub-thread), and the honor system.
It's all we have, but it usually works well enough.

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Thu, 19 Dec 2024 11:27:37 -0600, sticks
<wolverine01@charter.net> wrote:

>On 12/18/2024 10:23 PM, micky wrote:
>> In comp.mobile.android, on Tue, 17 Dec 2024 10:21:12 -0600, sticks
>> <wolverine01@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/17/2024 5:33 AM, micky wrote:
>>>> In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Tue, 17 Dec 2024 10:20:45 +0200, Steve
>>>> Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 16:12:08 -0500, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's not off-topic. The topic was usenet.
>>>>>
>>>>> But Windows 10 is not Usenet.
>>>>>
>>>>> Try news.groups
>>>>> and news.groups.questions
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, not a bad suggestion and clearly an attempt to be helpful, but I
>>>> don't read those groups and don't want to start for one question. I
>>>> don't know the people in them and don't know whose judgment to respect.
>>>
>>> What a round about way of saying you're too dumb and lazy to try to do
>>> things properly and you just don't care.
>>
>> You don't know me better than I know myself. Those were my real
>> reasons and don't involve laziness, and you are going by your idea of
>> what is proper, and I know longer care what you think but I do care
>> about this ng and all the others. ......
>>
>>>>> I was going to set more appropriate follow-ups, but want' allowed to,
>>>>> so sorry to all the inappropriate groups.

Steve Hayes said this.

>>>> This subthread reminds of when there was a newly formed moderated forum
>>>> on, say, Of Mice and Men, and the new moderators were ridiculously over-
>>>> strict, and people tried to post polite questions and complaints and the
>>>> mods rejected them all saying moderation was off-topic. We all thought
>>>> it was, say, an on-topic meta-topic, by definition. I think the same
>>>> thing here.
>>>
>>> no you don't.
>>
>> You definitely don't know what I think. Why do you imagine you know
>> what someone else thinks? That's sort of dumb, isn't it?
>
>What's dumb is you can't remember what you posted already, even though
>you quoted it. You said above, you don't want to post to another group
>because you're not currently subscribed to it, and you don't know the
>people in it. Then you said you wanted to set more *appropriate*
>follow-ups,

Steve Hayes said that.

>thereby acknowledging you at least kind of know this is the
>wrong forum.

Nope, and I didn't say it.

>>> you just don't care that you fill these groups with all
>>> your off-topic posts.
>>
>> Once every 2 or 3 months or less, by your standards. That's not filling
>> anything. And you have the opportunity to stop reading after the first
>> half of the first post, but no, you're still at it. You can even filter
>> me out. Feel free. I don't remember you ever answering one of my
>> technical questions, so I have nothing to lose.
>
>That's not how usenet works.

I didn't say anything about how Usenet works.

> There is no requirement to answer
>"technical questions."

Of course not and I didn't say it. imply it, or rely on it. I was not
complaining that you didn't answer my questions. I was saying, clearly,
that I had nothing to lose if you filtered me out because afaicr you
don't answer any of my questions anyhow.

> I will probably take your other advice soon
>enough, though.
>
>>> You'll prove me right by continuing to do similar
>>> things soon enough.
>>
>> It won't prove a thing.
>>
>> You didn't seem to notice that my question got several good answers,
>> from people who either didn't think it is was off topic, or are not so
>> hide-bound to an on-topic rule, which did not come down from Sinai.
>
>Please read Paul's most excellent post in this thread. Maybe coming
>from someone you respect a little more might help you with your
>comprehension problem.
>
>>
>> And BTW, the fewest number of replies were in AHR and none were from the
>> intruder/political spammers from other invading groups, probably because
>> they don't read AHR directly, they only cross-post to it.
>
>Who cares? Try posting on-topic things there and maybe you'll get more
>of a response.

You in your first reply, and I think one other person later, brought up
AHR.

I've been reading all these groups for 10 or 20 years, or more. Except
in AHR, how many times have I posted off-topic, even by your or the
strictest standards?. In a windows and firefox groups, I think this is
the only time. In 20 years. In the Android group, a few times
semi-on-topic, once about iphones when I found a lost iphone, and maybe
a couple more.

I'm not an invader whose goal is to fill the group with spam. Once in
20 years. And I'm not the poster a wave of OT posters are waiting for,
to know that it's time for them to start posting OT. So even if you
thought my post was OT, it would have been worth one short reply,
instead of series of 6 replies from you that were even more off-topic
than my OP So stop your whining.

On Sun, 12/22/2024 7:33 AM, micky wrote:

>
> So stop your whining.

This thread is cross-posted to disparate groups,
it does not contain OT: designator, and has
degenerated to a slag-fest.

This thread is over.

It's simple. Follow the rules.
Follow the rules, and you won't get whining.

Pretty easy, really. I know you can do it.
You have the skill-set for precision posting.

Paul