On 12/28/23 06:02, The Doctor wrote:
> In article <87edf7aw96.fsf_-_@yaxenu.org>,
> Julieta Shem <jshem@yaxenu.org> wrote:
>>
>> We should have sued Google Inc. over the destruction they caused on the
>> USENET for all these years. We should ask the courts to just unplug
>> them and nothing else.
>
> We still should!!
>

Funny how someone who supports Usenet being a dumping ground for their
literal piles of shit now want to sue someone else for making it a
dumping ground for their literal piles of shit.

On 12/28/23 12:06, Eric M wrote:
> Le 28/12/2023 à 10:48, llp a écrit :
>
>> I remove proven abuse, not vendetta against other users.
>
> A person who copies posts from one forum to another with followup to a
> third one without adding anything but sometimes an insult (I'm not even
> sure of that, he's hard to understand) is an abuser, wether you like it
> or not, even if it's your friend.
>

Will you start cancelling all of The Doctor's messages now?

On 12/28/23 09:33, Julieta Shem wrote:
> Should we archive everything?

That's up to each individual archivist.

They should properly clarify what they do and do not archive.

--
Grant. . . .

llp <contact@usenet.ovh> wrote:
> Ivo Gandolfo a exprimé avec précision :
[...]

> You can do what you like on your server, but don't insist on imposing
> your cancels and your vision of flooding in this way.

If I understand the situation correctly (<http://al.howardknight.net/>
doesn't show the Path for the cancels for which you gave the message-ids),
they are not "your cancels", but those of one of his users.

> I talk about it all the more freely as I publish nocems for flood.
> But a Nocem is never "imposed". Without the active involvement of a
> server administrator, a nocem does nothing.
> You should think about it and only publish nocems.
> I think you've already asked Olivier to do this, but he doesn't know
> how to do it and you continue to produce these abusive cancels.

As noel explained, there's no such thing as "abusive cancels". Cancels
are a non-issue. They already were when I was running a (real) server
two decades ago, and they still are. Just drop any you get and live
happily ever after.

[...]

> Not every server administrator has the same idea of what flood is.
>
> Wanting to impose *your* vision of things, as is currently the case
> with these unauthenticated cancels coming from your server, doesn't
> seem to be a good thing for usenet.

The very fact that these cancels are unauthenticated (non-Approved:)
only reinforces them being a non-issue.

> Of course, I could be wrong, but at least I don't impose anything
> of the sort on other server administrators.

And neither does Ivo Gandolfo.

P.S. I'm no particular fan of the average user of paganini.bofh.team,
but his server, his rules.

Frank Slootweg a écrit :
> llp <contact@usenet.ovh> wrote:
>> Ivo Gandolfo a exprimé avec précision :
> [...]
>
>> You can do what you like on your server, but don't insist on imposing
>> your cancels and your vision of flooding in this way.
>
> If I understand the situation correctly (<http://al.howardknight.net/>
> doesn't show the Path for the cancels for which you gave the message-ids),
> they are not "your cancels", but those of one of his users.

Yes. A user who can issue the cancels he wants on the messages he wants
from Ivo's server.

>
>> I talk about it all the more freely as I publish nocems for flood.
>> But a Nocem is never "imposed". Without the active involvement of a
>> server administrator, a nocem does nothing.
>> You should think about it and only publish nocems.
>> I think you've already asked Olivier to do this, but he doesn't know
>> how to do it and you continue to produce these abusive cancels.
>
> As noel explained, there's no such thing as "abusive cancels". Cancels
> are a non-issue. They already were when I was running a (real) server
> two decades ago, and they still are. Just drop any you get and live
> happily ever after.

Yes, I do that.

> [...]
>
>> Not every server administrator has the same idea of what flood is.
>>
>> Wanting to impose *your* vision of things, as is currently the case
>> with these unauthenticated cancels coming from your server, doesn't
>> seem to be a good thing for usenet.
>
> The very fact that these cancels are unauthenticated (non-Approved:)
> only reinforces them being a non-issue.

You're right about most servers: they ignore abusive cancels.

>> Of course, I could be wrong, but at least I don't impose anything
>> of the sort on other server administrators.
>
> And neither does Ivo Gandolfo.

And yet it does so by issuing cancels for messages that do not come
from its server.

> P.S. I'm no particular fan of the average user of paganini.bofh.team,

When Ivo asked for a feed, I answered his call.
I have nothing against him

> but his server, his rules.

Not when its actions have consequences for an other server and users.

The main French server (news.free.fr) is not protected against these
abusive cancels: anyone has always been able to delete the messages
they want on this server. And yet there was little abuse. But these
systematic cancels from Ivo's server are designed to impose a vision
(a censorship) on this server, which is almost no longer well managed
by its admins, but which is still widely used in France. I don't think
it's right to proceed in this way and take advantage of this deficiency
to impose these cancels. I'm not a party to this: my server doesn't
accept these unauthenticated cancels like most servers.

--
Admin of news.usenet.ovh

In article <87a5pu9u52.fsf@yaxenu.org>, Julieta Shem <jshem@yaxenu.org> wrote:
>doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) writes:
>
>[...]
>
>>>>>We should have sued Google Inc. over the destruction they caused on the
>>>>>USENET for all these years. We should ask the courts to just unplug
>>>>>them and nothing else.
>>>>
>>>> We still should!!
>>>
>>>Not any longer --- they promised to disappear in a reasonable time,
>>>rendering moot the litigation.
>>
>> But the damage is trackable.
>
>As long as a court receives your petition, you can litigate. You'll
>need to show you legally represent ``/the/ USENET''. (Or what are the
>parties in the litigation?)

Hmm ... Interesting idea!

--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
Merry Christmas 2023 and Happy New year 2024 Beware https://mindspring.com

llp <contact@usenet.ovh> wrote:

>>. . .

>You're right about most servers: they ignore abusive cancels.

You sound like yads and "spamtrolling".

You don't get to win an argument because you're hyping your position.
There is no abuse taking place despite that you've declared the cancels
"abusive". They're just third-party cancels that aren't being issued as
a denial-of-service attack (which truly would be abusive).

Your user is committing abuse ON Usenet with contentless followups and
posting followups or setting Followup-To to other newsgroups. If he
morphs frequently, then YOU are expected to kick him off your server. If
he never morphs, then the user is expected to kill file him.

If the canceller issuing them is doing so for a clearly-stated reason
to counter abuse ON Usenet (not abuse OF Usenet), it's not abusive.
There are unlikely to be any servers willing to process those cancel
messages, but if the canceller doesn't destroy his own reputation, then
maybe a News administrator would consider them to be valuable. He should
be issuing NoceMs, but that's a separate issue.

>>>Of course, I could be wrong, but at least I don't impose anything
>>>of the sort on other server administrators.

>>And neither does Ivo Gandolfo.

>And yet it does so by issuing cancels for messages that do not come
>from its server.

There is no central administration! This is Usenet. Every News
administrator decides for himself whether to process these cancels!

You are being ignored because the rule you just made up cannot be
imposed on other News administrators.

>>P.S. I'm no particular fan of the average user of paganini.bofh.team,

>When Ivo asked for a feed, I answered his call.
>I have nothing against him

>>but his server, his rules.

>Not when its actions have consequences for an other server and users.

bonk

YOUR actions have consequences for your fellow News administrators. You
made the choice not to TOS your user despite his immature behavior.

>The main French server (news.free.fr) is not protected against these
>abusive cancels: anyone has always been able to delete the messages
>they want on this server. And yet there was little abuse. But these
>systematic cancels from Ivo's server are designed to impose a vision
>(a censorship) on this server, which is almost no longer well managed
>by its admins, but which is still widely used in France. I don't think
>it's right to proceed in this way and take advantage of this deficiency
>to impose these cancels.

Tell the News administrator, not the Usenet community.

>I'm not a party to this: my server doesn't accept these unauthenticated
>cancels like most servers.

Oh, give me a break. There's no such thing as an AUTHENTICATED third
party cancel. Unauthenticated third-party cancels aren't abusive, in and
of themselves. It depends on the issuer's personal reputation as I
explained above. Cancels as a denial-of-service attack are very serious
abuse OF Usenet.

immibis <news@immibis.com> wrote:

> Will you start cancelling all of The Doctor's messages now?

Why would he? The Doctor doesn't make it hard to killfile him, if one
wishes so.

On 29/12/2023 01:21, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> cut

You summed up my line of thinking perfectly. I tried to explain it to
him several times but unfortunately "there is no worse deaf person than
someone who doesn't want to hear".
An abusive service will never exist on my server, I would be the first
to prevent it. If I have trusted a person it is because I have my
reasons for doing so, and moreover I have received many thanks for what
I am doing.

By now I have given up on making him understand some concepts, because
he seems convinced that things should be done only as his vision
dictates. Unfortunately he didn't understand that Usenet doesn't work
like that. If you can convince him, you will have my eternal gratitude.
Unfortunately on Usenet lately it has been working in "factions", and
all this makes me very sad. Usenet was born from collaboration, and not
from eternal and endless wars.
I hope that we can return to a period of pacifism, given that the main
source of disputes is about to abandon usenet soon.

Sincerely

--
Ivo Gandolfo

Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> writes:

> On 12/28/23 09:33, Julieta Shem wrote:
>> Should we archive everything?
>
> That's up to each individual archivist.
>
> They should properly clarify what they do and do not archive.

Suppose you are an invididual archivist. Should you archive everything?
What would be your clarification? :-)

On 12/28/23 21:24, Julieta Shem wrote:
> Suppose you are an invididual archivist. Should you archive everything?
> What would be your clarification? :-)

As I said before ...

On 12/28/23 13:57, Grant Taylor wrote:
> That's up to each individual archivist.

--
Grant. . . .

On 29/12/2023 01:21 (+0100), Adam H. Kerman answered llp :
> [...]

Thank you for your complete and accurate answer.

As the originator of the cancels that llp criticizes, I shall add some
details.

1) The administrator and users of the main French server news.free.fr
are generally very happy that my bot cancels those unwanted messages,
especially all the spam coming from Google groups.

2) My cancels are very easily identifiable (by From and X-Cancelled-by)
and difficult to counterfeiting (by the Path), so that news admins can
easily accept or refuse them as they want.

'From' for a spam cancel: miakibot <miakibot@miakinen.net>
'From' for a flood cancel: antiflood <antiflood@miakinen.net>

Example 'Path':
....!paganini.bofh.team!miakibot!byfrom!spamcancel!cyberspam!not-for-mail
(with possibly 'bysubject' instead of 'byfrom', 'mmfcancel' or
'spewcancel' instead of 'spamcancel', but the beginning and the end
are always the same).

3) There is no controversy about canceled spams. About the canceled
flood, only llp and a few others complain, but the cancellation follows
a positive vote with the users of the affected newsgroups. Of course
this positive vote for cancel is because of all the abuses of the
targeted user.

4) My cancels respect all traditional conventions, including the one
(specific to the fr.* hierarchy) that a report shall be posted to the
specific newsgroup fr.usenet.abus.rapports.

5) And before someone asks, yes it would be good if I also issued
NoCeMs, but the cancels are indeed very useful for some very old
news servers (such as e.g. news.free.fr and cabale.usenet-fr.net)
where spam can only be fought by cancel articles.

Best Regards,
--
Olivier Miakinen

Olivier Miakinen a présenté l'énoncé suivant :
> On 29/12/2023 01:21 (+0100), Adam H. Kerman answered llp :
>> [...]
>
> Thank you for your complete and accurate answer.
>
> As the originator of the cancels that llp criticizes, I shall add some
> details.

Your rights

> 1) The administrator and users of the main French server news.free.fr
> are generally very happy that my bot cancels those unwanted messages,
> especially all the spam coming from Google groups.

Surely you have something in writing from a free.fr administrator to
back up your claims? You know it's not the true. It's common knowledge
in the fr hierarchy.
And for users who are victims (or not) of your cancels at Free,
they are now using servers that use cancels-key/cancels_lock.
So their messages aren't deleted on other servers.

>[cut]

> 3) There is no controversy about canceled spams.

You probably inadvertently forgot to mention your 3600 cancellations
of Paul Aubrin's messages (i have the mids if you want).
A French user of "free.fr" (on E-S for now) whose messages were
perfectly in theme on the groups where they had been posting for
a long time. A year's worth of messages cancelled in one go!

> About the canceled flood, only llp and a few others complain,
> but the cancellation follows a positive vote with the users [cut]

But there is no vote on "fr" hierarchy since 2008.
Only consensus, and there is no censensus for that.
A precision: 13 voters (and not all for)
Like many others, I didn't take part in the vote. Tired of Olivier's
maneuvers to impose his views on the French hierarchy.
But we indicated our opposition and the absence of consensus.

Sincerely.

--
Admin of news.usenet.ovh

Le 29/12/2023, Adam H. Kerman a supposé :
> llp <contact@usenet.ovh> wrote:
>
>>> . . .
>
>> You're right about most servers: they ignore abusive cancels.

>[cut]
> There are unlikely to be any servers willing to process those cancel
> messages, but if the canceller doesn't destroy his own reputation, then
> maybe a News administrator would consider them to be valuable.

Some newsmasters have made it clear that they will never accept these
cancels. And I fully subscribe to their reasons.

> He should be issuing NoceMs, but that's a separate issue.

No worries if he issues cancels on this subject.
I'm even willing to help him with that.

>>>> Of course, I could be wrong, but at least I don't impose anything
>>>> of the sort on other server administrators.
>
>>> And neither does Ivo Gandolfo.
>
>> And yet it does so by issuing cancels for messages that do not come
>> from its server.
>
> There is no central administration! This is Usenet. Every News
> administrator decides for himself whether to process these cancels!
>
> You are being ignored because the rule you just made up cannot be
> imposed on other News administrators.

I published this initial message because, contrary to what you
seem to think, these cancels are accepted by default in inn2's basic
configuration (english is not my native language and perhaps I
misunderstood what you were saying).
But I'm reassured: the other admins have also modified their
configuration to avoid unwanted or unauthenticated cancels.

>[cut]
>> The main French server (news.free.fr) is not protected against these
>> abusive cancels: anyone has always been able to delete the messages
>> they want on this server. And yet there was little abuse. But these
>> systematic cancels from Ivo's server are designed to impose a vision
>> (a censorship) on this server, which is almost no longer well managed
>> by its admins, but which is still widely used in France. I don't think
>> it's right to proceed in this way and take advantage of this deficiency
>> to impose these cancels.
>
> Tell the News administrator, not the Usenet community.

You're right, of course.

>> I'm not a party to this: my server doesn't accept these unauthenticated
>> cancels like most servers.
>
> Oh, give me a break. There's no such thing as an AUTHENTICATED third
> party cancel. Unauthenticated third-party cancels aren't abusive, in and
> of themselves. It depends on the issuer's personal reputation as I
> explained above. Cancels as a denial-of-service attack are very serious
> abuse OF Usenet.

What do you think of a personal reputation of a an issuer who make
3600 cancel (a full year of messages in one go) of a french user (Paul
Aubrin). I have the mids if you want.

Sincerely.

--
Admin of news.usenet.ovh

(supersedes <umm384$3mpm2$1@news.usenet.ovh>)

Olivier Miakinen a présenté l'énoncé suivant :
> On 29/12/2023 01:21 (+0100), Adam H. Kerman answered llp :
>> [...]
>
> Thank you for your complete and accurate answer.
>
> As the originator of the cancels that llp criticizes, I shall add some
> details.

Your rights

> 1) The administrator and users of the main French server news.free.fr
> are generally very happy that my bot cancels those unwanted messages,
> especially all the spam coming from Google groups.

Surely you have something in writing from a free.fr administrator to
back up your claims? You know it's not the true. It's common knowledge
in the fr hierarchy.
And for users who are victims (or not) of your cancels at Free,
they are now using servers that use cancels-key/cancels_lock.
So their messages aren't deleted on other servers.

>[cut]

> 3) There is no controversy about canceled spams.

You probably inadvertently forgot to mention your 3600 cancellations
of Pierre Arribaut's messages (i have the mids if you want).
A French user of "free.fr" (on E-S for now) whose messages were
perfectly in theme on the groups where they had been posting for
a long time. A year's worth of messages cancelled in one go!

> About the canceled flood, only llp and a few others complain,
> but the cancellation follows a positive vote with the users [cut]

But there is no vote on "fr" hierarchy since 2008.
Only consensus, and there is no censensus for that.
A precision: 13 voters (and not all for)
Like many others, I didn't take part in the vote. Tired of Olivier's
maneuvers to impose his views on the French hierarchy.
But we indicated our opposition and the absence of consensus.

Sincerely.

--
Admin of news.usenet.ovh

(supersedes <umm5gb$3mvvm$1@news.usenet.ovh>)

Le 29/12/2023, Adam H. Kerman a supposé :
> llp <contact@usenet.ovh> wrote:
>
>>> . . .
>
>> You're right about most servers: they ignore abusive cancels.

>[cut]
> There are unlikely to be any servers willing to process those cancel
> messages, but if the canceller doesn't destroy his own reputation, then
> maybe a News administrator would consider them to be valuable.

Some newsmasters have made it clear that they will never accept these
cancels. And I fully subscribe to their reasons.

> He should be issuing NoceMs, but that's a separate issue.

No worries if he issues cancels on this subject.
I'm even willing to help him with that.

>>>> Of course, I could be wrong, but at least I don't impose anything
>>>> of the sort on other server administrators.
>
>>> And neither does Ivo Gandolfo.
>
>> And yet it does so by issuing cancels for messages that do not come
>> from its server.
>
> There is no central administration! This is Usenet. Every News
> administrator decides for himself whether to process these cancels!
>
> You are being ignored because the rule you just made up cannot be
> imposed on other News administrators.

I published this initial message because, contrary to what you
seem to think, these cancels are accepted by default in inn2's basic
configuration (english is not my native language and perhaps I
misunderstood what you were saying).
But I'm reassured: the other admins have also modified their
configuration to avoid unwanted or unauthenticated cancels.

>[cut]
>> The main French server (news.free.fr) is not protected against these
>> abusive cancels: anyone has always been able to delete the messages
>> they want on this server. And yet there was little abuse. But these
>> systematic cancels from Ivo's server are designed to impose a vision
>> (a censorship) on this server, which is almost no longer well managed
>> by its admins, but which is still widely used in France. I don't think
>> it's right to proceed in this way and take advantage of this deficiency
>> to impose these cancels.
>
> Tell the News administrator, not the Usenet community.

You're right, of course.

>> I'm not a party to this: my server doesn't accept these unauthenticated
>> cancels like most servers.
>
> Oh, give me a break. There's no such thing as an AUTHENTICATED third
> party cancel. Unauthenticated third-party cancels aren't abusive, in and
> of themselves. It depends on the issuer's personal reputation as I
> explained above. Cancels as a denial-of-service attack are very serious
> abuse OF Usenet.

What do you think of a personal reputation of a an issuer who make
3600 cancel (a full year of messages in one go) of a french user
(Pierre Arribaut). I have the mids if you want.

Sincerely.

--
Admin of news.usenet.ovh

llp <contact@usenet.ovh> wrote:

>(supersedes <umm5gb$3mvvm$1@news.usenet.ovh>)

>Le 29/12/2023, Adam H. Kerman:
>>llp <contact@usenet.ovh> wrote:

>>>>. . .

>>>>>Of course, I could be wrong, but at least I don't impose anything
>>>>>of the sort on other server administrators.

>>>>And neither does Ivo Gandolfo.

>>>And yet it does so by issuing cancels for messages that do not come
>>>from its server.

>>There is no central administration! This is Usenet. Every News
>>administrator decides for himself whether to process these cancels!

>>You are being ignored because the rule you just made up cannot be
>>imposed on other News administrators.

>I published this initial message because, contrary to what you
>seem to think, these cancels are accepted by default in inn2's basic
>configuration (english is not my native language and perhaps I
>misunderstood what you were saying).
>But I'm reassured: the other admins have also modified their
>configuration to avoid unwanted or unauthenticated cancels.

INN is complicated and requires a whole lot of configuration. It's
unlikely that there are going to be no defaults that require changing. A
new News administrator has to consider carefully the implications of
allowing various types of control messages to be processed
automatically, and recall the long-standing problem of denial of service
attacks. It's unlikely that automatically processing newgroup messages
in free.* and alt.* and other unadministered hierarchies, which is a
default setting, is desireable either.

Again, I renew my objection to raising the issue of UNAUTHENTICATED
cancels, which is irrelevant to third-party cancels. Cancel-lock was
never implemented to authenticate third-party cancels.

>>[cut]

>>>The main French server (news.free.fr) is not protected against these
>>>abusive cancels: anyone has always been able to delete the messages
>>>they want on this server. And yet there was little abuse. But these
>>>systematic cancels from Ivo's server are designed to impose a vision
>>>(a censorship) on this server, which is almost no longer well managed
>>>by its admins, but which is still widely used in France. I don't think
>>>it's right to proceed in this way and take advantage of this deficiency
>>>to impose these cancels.

>>Tell the News administrator, not the Usenet community.

>You're right, of course.

>>>I'm not a party to this: my server doesn't accept these unauthenticated
>>>cancels like most servers.

>>Oh, give me a break. There's no such thing as an AUTHENTICATED third
>>party cancel. Unauthenticated third-party cancels aren't abusive, in and
>>of themselves. It depends on the issuer's personal reputation as I
>>explained above. Cancels as a denial-of-service attack are very serious
>>abuse OF Usenet.

>What do you think of a personal reputation of a an issuer who make
>3600 cancel (a full year of messages in one go) of a french user
>(Pierre Arribaut). I have the mids if you want.

It appears that on this issue, you made a valid point. If the third-
party cancel isn't being issued soon after the article intended for
cancellation, it shouldn't be issued at all. It cannot have an effect.
The articles have already been seen if not read by everybody.

llp <contact@usenet.ovh> writes:
> I published this initial message because, contrary to what you seem to
> think, these cancels are accepted by default in inn2's basic
> configuration (english is not my native language and perhaps I
> misunderstood what you were saying).

This was changed in (I think) INN 2.7. Unauthenticated cancels are now
ignored by default.

https://github.com/InterNetNews/inn/blob/main/doc/pod/inn.conf.pod#user-content-docancels

--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> llp <contact@usenet.ovh> writes:
>> I published this initial message because, contrary to what you seem to
>> think, these cancels are accepted by default in inn2's basic
>> configuration (english is not my native language and perhaps I
>> misunderstood what you were saying).
>
> This was changed in (I think) INN 2.7. Unauthenticated cancels are now
> ignored by default.

As they absolutely should be, or do you want me to issue a couple of
hundred cancels spread over several newsgroups?
(This something I have no idea how to do and no intention of trying, but
we have a few people around who would love the opportunity).

>
> https://github.com/InterNetNews/inn/blob/main/doc/pod/inn.conf.pod#user-content-docancels
>

Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> writes:

> On 12/28/23 21:24, Julieta Shem wrote:
>> Suppose you are an invididual archivist. Should you archive everything?
>> What would be your clarification? :-)
>
> As I said before ...
>
> On 12/28/23 13:57, Grant Taylor wrote:
>> That's up to each individual archivist.

You violate the premise. You're not obliged to answer, in which case
your answer can be --- I prefer not to answer, which can be done
explicitly or implicitly (by not answering, say). To suppose you are an
archivist means that you have made your decisions and the problem is
asking you to describe them. It's silly to suppose x is an odd number
and say that x's parity depends on x. In other words, when you are the
archivist, your decisions are not up to each individual archivist ---
they're up to /you/ --- and these are fixed decisions because they all
belong to your past already.

Richard Kettlewell avait soumis l'idée :
> llp <contact@usenet.ovh> writes:
>> I published this initial message because, contrary to what you seem to
>> think, these cancels are accepted by default in inn2's basic
>> configuration (english is not my native language and perhaps I
>> misunderstood what you were saying).
>
> This was changed in (I think) INN 2.7. Unauthenticated cancels are now
> ignored by default.
>
> https://github.com/InterNetNews/inn/blob/main/doc/pod/inn.conf.pod#user-content-docancels

Good news !

--
Admin of news.usenet.ovh

On 12/29/23 11:06, Julieta Shem wrote:
> these are fixed decisions because they all belong to your past already.

No they are not.

As long as you can read your own archive, you can write out to a
different archive as you want to.

Similarly, you don't have to do the same thing as anyone else.

Each individual archivist archives what they want, how they want, where
they want, and when they want. It's up to each individual to decide
what they do.

--
Grant. . . .

In article <umkcfl$2597v$2@paganini.bofh.team>,
Andrew <Doug@hyperspace.vogon.gov> wrote:
>Julieta Shem wrote:
>> doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) writes:
>>
>>> In article <87edf7aw96.fsf_-_@yaxenu.org>,
>>> Julieta Shem <jshem@yaxenu.org> wrote:
>>>> D <J@M> writes:
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>> 56 days until google cuts the cho... err..cord, will be decommissioned,
>>>>> disabled, disconnected, deactivated, dismantled, shut down, turned off,
>>>>> put aside, unplugged, inoperative, unavailable, mothballed, disallowed,
>>>>> taken down, phased out, gone kaput, consigned to the annals of history,
>>>>> blocked, nixed, ixnayed, etcetera . . . countdown to usenet armageddon?
>>>>
>>>> You know what would be funny? If GG doesn't unplug and goes quiet for
>>>> another few years and everything remains as it is. We need to celebrate
>>>> only after they part. Yes, I'm surely hoping they go.
>>>>
>>>> When they joined, bought DejaNews and everything, I was happy that they
>>>> were doing a good job. I was too young then, though. I didn't know
>>>> that years go by and companies go rotten. Had the employees responsible
>>>> for them joining had any wisdom, they wouldn't have done the work. If a
>>>> company asks for my help to join the USENET today, I should only help
>>>> them if I also have the power to unplug them if I ever untie myself from
>>>> them. We let people destroy their lives because it's their lives, but
>>>> we cannot let them destroy the commune.
>>>>
>>>> We should have sued Google Inc. over the destruction they caused on the
>>>> USENET for all these years. We should ask the courts to just unplug
>>>> them and nothing else.
>>>
>>> We still should!!
>>
>> Not any longer --- they promised to disappear in a reasonable time,
>> rendering moot the litigation.
>
>They have bigger lawyers.

Yes, but they also have bigger problems. It's a minimal amount of effort
for them to hand off a few tapes to people to ask for them, and it does
them no harm.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> writes:

> On 12/29/23 11:06, Julieta Shem wrote:
>> these are fixed decisions because they all belong to your past already.
>
> No they are not.

Lol. You don't seem to know how to suppose or refuse to do so. Either
way is quite alright with me. No hard feelings.

Andrew <Doug@hyperspace.vogon.gov> writes:

[...]

> They have bigger lawyers.

They don't have Ralph Nader.