I've got back to the 9th November 2023 marking all the spam advertising regulated goods and service. Google will probably get around to deleting all of it.

The flood seems to have started on the 24th October 2023, so I've still got a way to go, but the end is in sight.

Darius the particularly Dumb is a different kind of problem.

John Larkin has been just as reliably wrong for a lot longer, and we haven't been able to either educate him or get him to shut up in twenty years.

--
Bill Sloman, sydhey

On 20/01/2024 3:35 pm, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> I've got back to the 9th November 2023 marking all the spam advertising regulated goods and service. Google will probably get around to deleting all of it.
>
> The flood seems to have started on the 24th October 2023, so I've still got a way to go, but the end is in sight.
>
> Darius the particularly Dumb is a different kind of problem.
>
> John Larkin has been just as reliably wrong for a lot longer, and we haven't been able to either educate him or get him to shut up in twenty years.

I've now got back to the 24th October 2023, marking all the spam on the
way. That involved marking some stuff that I'm pretty sure that I'd
marked on previous passes, so it may need to be repeated more than once.

The flood did seems to start the 24th October, and there were quite a
lot of call girls, fake drivers licenses, fake term papers, psychodelics
and pharmaceuticals in the mix - it wasn't all on=line gambling.

--
Bill Sloman,Sydney

On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 00:50:26 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:

>On 20/01/2024 3:35 pm, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
>> I've got back to the 9th November 2023 marking all the spam advertising regulated goods and service. Google will probably get around to deleting all of it.
>>
>> The flood seems to have started on the 24th October 2023, so I've still got a way to go, but the end is in sight.
>>
>> Darius the particularly Dumb is a different kind of problem.
>>
>> John Larkin has been just as reliably wrong for a lot longer, and we haven't been able to either educate him or get him to shut up in twenty years.
>
>I've now got back to the 24th October 2023, marking all the spam on the
>way. That involved marking some stuff that I'm pretty sure that I'd
>marked on previous passes, so it may need to be repeated more than once.
>
>The flood did seems to start the 24th October, and there were quite a
>lot of call girls, fake drivers licenses, fake term papers, psychodelics
>and pharmaceuticals in the mix - it wasn't all on=line gambling.

If you're using two compromised addresses, you'll get double the flak.

RL

On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 3:21:49 AM UTC+11, legg wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 00:50:26 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill....@ieee.org>
> wrote:
> >On 20/01/2024 3:35 pm, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> >> I've got back to the 9th November 2023 marking all the spam advertising regulated goods and service. Google will probably get around to deleting all of it.
> >>
> >> The flood seems to have started on the 24th October 2023, so I've still got a way to go, but the end is in sight.
> >>
> >> Darius the particularly Dumb is a different kind of problem.
> >>
> >> John Larkin has been just as reliably wrong for a lot longer, and we haven't been able to either educate him or get him to shut up in twenty years.
> >
> >I've now got back to the 24th October 2023, marking all the spam on the
> >way. That involved marking some stuff that I'm pretty sure that I'd
> >marked on previous passes, so it may need to be repeated more than once.
> >
> >The flood did seems to start the 24th October, and there were quite a
> >lot of call girls, fake drivers licenses, fake term papers, psychodelics
> >and pharmaceuticals in the mix - it wasn't all on=line gambling.
>
> If you're using two compromised addresses, you'll get double the flak.

I use exactly the same address - my ieee e-mail alias - for everything I post. Google - who now provides the IEEE e-mail aliasing service - gets me to log in with my ieee membership about once a fortnight.

Eternal September doesn't.

It's about as uncompromised as an e-mail address gets. It tracks backs back to my IEEE membership number, and fact that Google insists in using my full name reflects the fact that they got me to back up my identity with a scan of my passport.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 18:33:31 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

>On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 3:21:49?AM UTC+11, legg wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 00:50:26 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill....@ieee.org>
>> wrote:
>> >On 20/01/2024 3:35 pm, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
>> >> I've got back to the 9th November 2023 marking all the spam advertising regulated goods and service. Google will probably get around to deleting all of it.
>> >>
>> >> The flood seems to have started on the 24th October 2023, so I've still got a way to go, but the end is in sight.
>> >>
>> >> Darius the particularly Dumb is a different kind of problem.
>> >>
>> >> John Larkin has been just as reliably wrong for a lot longer, and we haven't been able to either educate him or get him to shut up in twenty years.
>> >
>> >I've now got back to the 24th October 2023, marking all the spam on the
>> >way. That involved marking some stuff that I'm pretty sure that I'd
>> >marked on previous passes, so it may need to be repeated more than once.
>> >
>> >The flood did seems to start the 24th October, and there were quite a
>> >lot of call girls, fake drivers licenses, fake term papers, psychodelics
>> >and pharmaceuticals in the mix - it wasn't all on=line gambling.
>>
>> If you're using two compromised addresses, you'll get double the flak.
>
>I use exactly the same address - my ieee e-mail alias - for everything I post. Google - who now provides the IEEE e-mail aliasing service - gets me to log in with my ieee membership about once a fortnight.
>
>Eternal September doesn't.
>
>It's about as uncompromised as an e-mail address gets. It tracks backs back to my IEEE membership number, and fact that Google insists in using my full name reflects the fact that they got me to back up my identity with a scan of my passport.

I guess it's time to say goodbye then, Bill. I'm not sure exactly when
GG is ending, but I'll miss you posting your contemptuous nonsense
here. However, there are alternatives available at very modest cost. I
know you're just a poor pensioner and don't have much cash to spare,
but even so, a sub to Giganews (to take just one example) doesn't cost
a fortune. I think I can speak on behalf of *everyone* here when I say
we'll miss you with the passing of GG if you don't find another route
to Usenet.

On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 8:51:18 PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 18:33:31 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 3:21:49?AM UTC+11, legg wrote:
> >> On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 00:50:26 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill....@ieee.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> >On 20/01/2024 3:35 pm, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> >> >> I've got back to the 9th November 2023 marking all the spam advertising regulated goods and service. Google will probably get around to deleting all of it.
> >> >>
> >> >> The flood seems to have started on the 24th October 2023, so I've still got a way to go, but the end is in sight.
> >> >>
> >> >> Darius the particularly Dumb is a different kind of problem.
> >> >>
> >> >> John Larkin has been just as reliably wrong for a lot longer, and we haven't been able to either educate him or get him to shut up in twenty years.
> >> >
> >> >I've now got back to the 24th October 2023, marking all the spam on the
> >> >way. That involved marking some stuff that I'm pretty sure that I'd
> >> >marked on previous passes, so it may need to be repeated more than once.
> >> >
> >> >The flood did seems to start the 24th October, and there were quite a
> >> >lot of call girls, fake drivers licenses, fake term papers, psychodelics
> >> >and pharmaceuticals in the mix - it wasn't all on=line gambling.
> >>
> >> If you're using two compromised addresses, you'll get double the flak.
> >
> >I use exactly the same address - my ieee e-mail alias - for everything I post. Google - who now provides the IEEE e-mail aliasing service - gets me to log in with my ieee membership about once a fortnight.
> >
> >Eternal September doesn't.
> >
> >It's about as uncompromised as an e-mail address gets. It tracks backs back to my IEEE membership number, and fact that Google insists in using my full name reflects the fact that they got me to back up my identity with a scan of my passport.
>
> I guess it's time to say goodbye then, Bill. I'm not sure exactly when
> GG is ending, but I'll miss you posting your contemptuous nonsense
> here.

You have certainly earned a lot of contempt here - you are little too dim to understand why, so you may feel able to shrug it off as nonsense.

> However, there are alternatives available at very modest cost.

If you weren't such a complete twit you would have noticed that I've resumed posting via Eternal September (which doesn't cost me anything).

> I know you're just a poor pensioner and don't have much cash to spare,

I do get a couple of different pensions, but they aren't my only source of income. I'm not short of money, not that I need to spend all that much
Unlike you, I haven't had to emigrate to mininimise my tax bill.

> but even so, a sub to Giganews (to take just one example) doesn't cost
> a fortune.

Eternal September is free.

> I think I can speak on behalf of *everyone* here when I say we'll miss you with the passing of GG if you don't find another route
to Usenet.

I've been using Eternal September quite often recently, It shows up clearly on the google groups forum where stuff I post via Eternal September is labelled "Bill Sloman" while google groups insists on labelling me as "Anthony William Sloman", because the IEEE insists on using my full name.

I haven't made a secret of this, and jeered at Darius the dumb recently for being unaware of it. You seem to deserve an equal amount of derision.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 02:29:20 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

>On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 8:51:18?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 18:33:31 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
>> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 3:21:49?AM UTC+11, legg wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 00:50:26 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill....@ieee.org>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >On 20/01/2024 3:35 pm, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
>> >> >> I've got back to the 9th November 2023 marking all the spam advertising regulated goods and service. Google will probably get around to deleting all of it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The flood seems to have started on the 24th October 2023, so I've still got a way to go, but the end is in sight.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Darius the particularly Dumb is a different kind of problem.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> John Larkin has been just as reliably wrong for a lot longer, and we haven't been able to either educate him or get him to shut up in twenty years.
>> >> >
>> >> >I've now got back to the 24th October 2023, marking all the spam on the
>> >> >way. That involved marking some stuff that I'm pretty sure that I'd
>> >> >marked on previous passes, so it may need to be repeated more than once.
>> >> >
>> >> >The flood did seems to start the 24th October, and there were quite a
>> >> >lot of call girls, fake drivers licenses, fake term papers, psychodelics
>> >> >and pharmaceuticals in the mix - it wasn't all on=line gambling.
>> >>
>> >> If you're using two compromised addresses, you'll get double the flak.
>> >
>> >I use exactly the same address - my ieee e-mail alias - for everything I post. Google - who now provides the IEEE e-mail aliasing service - gets me to log in with my ieee membership about once a fortnight.
>> >
>> >Eternal September doesn't.
>> >
>> >It's about as uncompromised as an e-mail address gets. It tracks backs back to my IEEE membership number, and fact that Google insists in using my full name reflects the fact that they got me to back up my identity with a scan of my passport.
>>
>> I guess it's time to say goodbye then, Bill. I'm not sure exactly when
>> GG is ending, but I'll miss you posting your contemptuous nonsense
>> here.
>
>You have certainly earned a lot of contempt here - you are little too dim to understand why, so you may feel able to shrug it off as nonsense.
>
>> However, there are alternatives available at very modest cost.
>
>If you weren't such a complete twit you would have noticed that I've resumed posting via Eternal September (which doesn't cost me anything).
>
>> I know you're just a poor pensioner and don't have much cash to spare,
>
>I do get a couple of different pensions, but they aren't my only source of income. I'm not short of money, not that I need to spend all that much
> Unlike you, I haven't had to emigrate to mininimise my tax bill.
>
>> but even so, a sub to Giganews (to take just one example) doesn't cost
>> a fortune.
>
>Eternal September is free.
>
>> I think I can speak on behalf of *everyone* here when I say we'll miss you with the passing of GG if you don't find another route
> to Usenet.
>
>I've been using Eternal September quite often recently, It shows up clearly on the google groups forum where stuff I post via Eternal September is labelled "Bill Sloman" while google groups insists on labelling me as "Anthony William Sloman", because the IEEE insists on using my full name.
>
>I haven't made a secret of this, and jeered at Darius the dumb recently for being unaware of it. You seem to deserve an equal amount of derision.

Indeed. Well, I can't think of anyone better than your good self to
deliver it, Bill.

On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 10:44:28 PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 02:29:20 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman <bill.....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 8:51:18?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 18:33:31 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 3:21:49?AM UTC+11, legg wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 00:50:26 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >> >On 20/01/2024 3:35 pm, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

<snip>

> >> I think I can speak on behalf of *everyone* here when I say we'll miss you with the passing of GG if you don't find another route
> > to Usenet.
> >
> >I've been using Eternal September quite often recently, It shows up clearly on the google groups forum where stuff I post via Eternal September is labelled "Bill Sloman" while google groups insists on labelling me as "Anthony William Sloman", because the IEEE insists on using my full name.
> >
> >I haven't made a secret of this, and jeered at Darius the dumb recently for being unaware of it. You seem to deserve an equal amount of derision.
>
> Indeed. Well, I can't think of anyone better than your good self to deliver it, Bill.

Your grasp of reality leaves a lot to be desired. So does that of Darius the Dumb. Are you sure that he isn't one of your aliases?

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 05:07:21 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

>On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 10:44:28?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 02:29:20 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 8:51:18?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 18:33:31 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >> >On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 3:21:49?AM UTC+11, legg wrote:
>> >> >> On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 00:50:26 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >> >> >On 20/01/2024 3:35 pm, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> >> I think I can speak on behalf of *everyone* here when I say we'll miss you with the passing of GG if you don't find another route
>> > to Usenet.
>> >
>> >I've been using Eternal September quite often recently, It shows up clearly on the google groups forum where stuff I post via Eternal September is labelled "Bill Sloman" while google groups insists on labelling me as "Anthony William Sloman", because the IEEE insists on using my full name.
>> >
>> >I haven't made a secret of this, and jeered at Darius the dumb recently for being unaware of it. You seem to deserve an equal amount of derision.
>>
>> Indeed. Well, I can't think of anyone better than your good self to deliver it, Bill.
>
>Your grasp of reality leaves a lot to be desired. So does that of Darius the Dumb. Are you sure that he isn't one of your aliases?

I don't have any aliases, Bill (unlike yourself).

On Monday, January 22, 2024 at 12:23:42 AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 05:07:21 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 10:44:28?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 02:29:20 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman <bill.....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 8:51:18?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> >> On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 18:33:31 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >> >On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 3:21:49?AM UTC+11, legg wrote:
> >> >> >> On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 00:50:26 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >> >> >On 20/01/2024 3:35 pm, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >> >> I think I can speak on behalf of *everyone* here when I say we'll miss you with the passing of GG if you don't find another route
> >> > to Usenet.
> >> >
> >> >I've been using Eternal September quite often recently, It shows up clearly on the google groups forum where stuff I post via Eternal September is labelled "Bill Sloman" while google groups insists on labelling me as "Anthony William Sloman", because the IEEE insists on using my full name.
> >> >
> >> >I haven't made a secret of this, and jeered at Darius the dumb recently for being unaware of it. You seem to deserve an equal amount of derision..
> >>
> >> Indeed. Well, I can't think of anyone better than your good self to deliver it, Bill.
> >
> >Your grasp of reality leaves a lot to be desired. So does that of Darius the Dumb. Are you sure that he isn't one of your aliases?
> I don't have any aliases, Bill (unlike yourself).

I doubt that Cursitor Doom is the name on your passport. Anthony William Sloman is the name on mine. You are an anonymous troll, just like Darius the dumb, and just as unreliable - which is to say, frankly incredible.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 05:35:40 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

>On Monday, January 22, 2024 at 12:23:42?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 05:07:21 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
>> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 10:44:28?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 02:29:20 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >> >On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 8:51:18?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> >> >> On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 18:33:31 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >> >> >On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 3:21:49?AM UTC+11, legg wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 00:50:26 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >On 20/01/2024 3:35 pm, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
>> >
>> ><snip>
>> >
>> >> >> I think I can speak on behalf of *everyone* here when I say we'll miss you with the passing of GG if you don't find another route
>> >> > to Usenet.
>> >> >
>> >> >I've been using Eternal September quite often recently, It shows up clearly on the google groups forum where stuff I post via Eternal September is labelled "Bill Sloman" while google groups insists on labelling me as "Anthony William Sloman", because the IEEE insists on using my full name.
>> >> >
>> >> >I haven't made a secret of this, and jeered at Darius the dumb recently for being unaware of it. You seem to deserve an equal amount of derision.
>> >>
>> >> Indeed. Well, I can't think of anyone better than your good self to deliver it, Bill.
>> >
>> >Your grasp of reality leaves a lot to be desired. So does that of Darius the Dumb. Are you sure that he isn't one of your aliases?
>> I don't have any aliases, Bill (unlike yourself)
>I doubt that Cursitor Doom is the name on your passport. Anthony William Sloman is the name on mine. You are an anonymous troll, just like Darius the dumb, and just as unreliable - which is to say, frankly incredible.

Whatever. The fact is I only have one identity on Usenet where as you
have at least two on this group alone.

On Monday, January 22, 2024 at 12:38:53 AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 05:35:40 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >On Monday, January 22, 2024 at 12:23:42?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 05:07:21 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 10:44:28?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 02:29:20 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >> >On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 8:51:18?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> >> >> On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 18:33:31 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >> >> >On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 3:21:49?AM UTC+11, legg wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 00:50:26 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >On 20/01/2024 3:35 pm, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> >> >
> >> ><snip>
> >> >
> >> >> >> I think I can speak on behalf of *everyone* here when I say we'll miss you with the passing of GG if you don't find another route
> >> >> > to Usenet.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I've been using Eternal September quite often recently, It shows up clearly on the google groups forum where stuff I post via Eternal September is labelled "Bill Sloman" while google groups insists on labelling me as "Anthony William Sloman", because the IEEE insists on using my full name.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I haven't made a secret of this, and jeered at Darius the dumb recently for being unaware of it. You seem to deserve an equal amount of derision.
> >> >>
> >> >> Indeed. Well, I can't think of anyone better than your good self to deliver it, Bill.
> >> >
> >> >Your grasp of reality leaves a lot to be desired. So does that of Darius the Dumb. Are you sure that he isn't one of your aliases?
> >> I don't have any aliases, Bill (unlike yourself)
> >I doubt that Cursitor Doom is the name on your passport. Anthony William Sloman is the name on mine. You are an anonymous troll, just like Darius the dumb, and just as unreliable - which is to say, frankly incredible.
>
> Whatever. The fact is I only have one identity on Usenet where as you
> have at least two on this group alone.

No. I have one identity which generates two different labels. Because it's my real identity I can't do anything about the labels.

You are free to claim that you have only one identity on Usernet. but since it doesn't link back to anything in the real world - published parers, IEEE membership and the like - it's just a claim.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Monday, January 22, 2024 at 12:35:53 PM UTC+11, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> On Monday, January 22, 2024 at 12:38:53 AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> > On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 05:35:40 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
> > <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> > >On Monday, January 22, 2024 at 12:23:42?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> > >> On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 05:07:21 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
> > >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> > >> >On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 10:44:28?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> > >> >> On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 02:29:20 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> > >> >> >On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 8:51:18?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> > >> >> >> On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 18:33:31 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> > >> >> >> >On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 3:21:49?AM UTC+11, legg wrote:
> > >> >> >> >> On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 00:50:26 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> > >> >> >> >> >On 20/01/2024 3:35 pm, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

<snip>

I've managed to complete a second pass through back to the 24th October 2023, and a lot of the weeds had spouted back up again.

It may not be entirely futile, but it doesn't look as if it worth trying to make a habit of doing it. Artificial intelligence could do it faster, but Google clearly has more profitable ways if keeping that busy.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Anthony William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
> On Monday, January 22, 2024 at 12:35:53 PM UTC+11, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
>> On Monday, January 22, 2024 at 12:38:53 AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>> On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 05:35:40 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
>>> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>> On Monday, January 22, 2024 at 12:23:42?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 05:07:21 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
>>>>> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 10:44:28?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 02:29:20 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
>>>>>>> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 8:51:18?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 18:33:31 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
>>>>>>>>> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 3:21:49?AM UTC+11, legg wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 00:50:26 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/01/2024 3:35 pm, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> I've managed to complete a second pass through back to the 24th October
> 2023, and a lot of the weeds had spouted back up again.
>
> It may not be entirely futile, but it doesn't look as if it worth trying
> to make a habit of doing it. Artificial intelligence could do it faster,
> but Google clearly has more profitable ways if keeping that busy.
>

Unfortunately it seems to only hide those marked as spam from your account,
they are still visible to everyone else. I too have been marking those slot
spammers as spam since they first appeared and it has only benefited me.

--
piglet

On Wednesday, January 24, 2024 at 11:34:28 PM UTC+11, piglet wrote:
> Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> > On Monday, January 22, 2024 at 12:35:53 PM UTC+11, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> >> On Monday, January 22, 2024 at 12:38:53 AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 05:35:40 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
> >>> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >>>> On Monday, January 22, 2024 at 12:23:42?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >>>>> On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 05:07:21 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
> >>>>> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 10:44:28?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 02:29:20 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
> >>>>>>> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 8:51:18?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 18:33:31 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
> >>>>>>>>> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 3:21:49?AM UTC+11, legg wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 00:50:26 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/01/2024 3:35 pm, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > I've managed to complete a second pass through back to the 24th October
> > 2023, and a lot of the weeds had spouted back up again.
> >
> > It may not be entirely futile, but it doesn't look as if it worth trying
> > to make a habit of doing it. Artificial intelligence could do it faster,
> > but Google clearly has more profitable ways if keeping that busy.
> >
> Unfortunately it seems to only hide those marked as spam from your account,
> they are still visible to everyone else. I too have been marking those slot
> spammers as spam since they first appeared and it has only benefited me.

Some of the posts do seem to end up being deleted - more of the ones I mark as "promoting regulated goods and services" as in drugs, gambling and fake driving licenses - but that's just a personal impression.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Friday, January 19, 2024 at 9:35:41 PM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

> John Larkin has been just as reliably wrong for a lot longer, and we haven't been able to either educate him or get him to shut up in twenty years.
>
> --
> Bill Sloman, sydhey

What is your obsession with this John Larkin? It's like he hurt your feelings 2 decades ago and you have been following him around tossing insults at every opportunity for 20+ years now while he continues to ignore you. Say what you want about his posts (I find him to be one of the more on-topic posters still hanging around here) but this is getting pretty pathetic at this point...I am embarrassed for you.

On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 12:28:39 -0800 (PST), DemonicTubes
<tlackie@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, January 19, 2024 at 9:35:41?PM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
>
>> John Larkin has been just as reliably wrong for a lot longer, and we haven't been able to either educate him or get him to shut up in twenty years.
>>
>> --
>> Bill Sloman, sydhey
>
>What is your obsession with this John Larkin?

There are many, too many, John Larkins in the world.

>It's like he hurt your feelings 2 decades ago and you have been following him around tossing insults at every opportunity for 20+ years now while he continues to ignore you.

He wanted me to hire him, and I didn't.

> Say what you want about his posts (I find him to be one of the more on-topic posters still hanging around here) but this is getting pretty pathetic at this point...I am embarrassed for you.

On Friday, January 26, 2024 at 2:09:18 PM UTC-7, john larkin wrote:

> >It's like he hurt your feelings 2 decades ago and you have been following him around tossing insults at every opportunity for 20+ years now while he continues to ignore you.
> He wanted me to hire him, and I didn't.

What a sad way to spend your twilight years.

Thanks for replying, John, I've seen him posting his piss and vinegar against you for all these years and I was always curious what initially set him off.

There are plenty of weirdos posting inane garbage here so it always made me wonder why he constantly singles you of all people out.

On Saturday, January 27, 2024 at 8:09:18 AM UTC+11, john larkin wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 12:28:39 -0800 (PST), DemonicTubes
> <tla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Friday, January 19, 2024 at 9:35:41?PM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> >
> >> John Larkin has been just as reliably wrong for a lot longer, and we haven't been able to either educate him or get him to shut up in twenty years.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Bill Sloman, sydhey
> >
> >What is your obsession with this John Larkin?
> There are many, too many, John Larkins in the world.
> >It's like he hurt your feelings 2 decades ago and you have been following him around tossing insults at every opportunity for 20+ years now while he continues to ignore you.
>
> He wanted me to hire him, and I didn't.

Not exactly. He posted that he needed help, and I suggested that I'd be available as a remote - electronic contact only - sub-contractor.

His reaction as to copy the e-mail to Jim Thompson who promptly posted posted a comment that he'd stopped John Larkin from making a huge mistake.

That not just "not hiring", but a gross violation of privacy. I couldn't care less about not being hired - I would have liked to get the work, though the more John Larkin posts about his approach to design the less confident I am about my capacity to offer him anything he'd want to use.

I was mightily peeved about Jim Thompson getting a private e-mail from me to John Larkin, and that has - quite properly - coloured my reactions to John Larkin ever since.

He's simply not to be trusted.

> > Say what you want about his posts (I find him to be one of the more on-topic posters still hanging around here) but this is getting pretty pathetic at this point...I am embarrassed for you.

Don't bother being embarrassed for me. Be embarrassed for John Larkin, who still hasn't realised that he behaved badly.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Saturday, January 27, 2024 at 9:02:34 AM UTC+11, DemonicTubes wrote:
> On Friday, January 26, 2024 at 2:09:18 PM UTC-7, john larkin wrote:
>
>
> > >It's like he hurt your feelings 2 decades ago and you have been following him around tossing insults at every opportunity for 20+ years now while he continues to ignore you.
> >
> > He wanted me to hire him, and I didn't.

Not the whole story, and it's not that aspect of the interaction that I resent.

> What a sad way to spend your twilight years.
>
> Thanks for replying, John, I've seen him posting his piss and vinegar against you for all these years and I was always curious what initially set him off.

What initially set me off - long before that iteraction - was that he wouldn;t discuss what he was doing or why he had done it that way. The late Tony Williams and I had some private conversations about this, and Tony Williams was of the opinion that the work he did show was good enough to earn him the benefit of the doubt. I was less confident, and after Tony died I was more willing to express my doubts
> There are plenty of weirdos posting inane garbage here so it always made me wonder why he constantly singles you of all people out.

John Larkin is good enough to make his daft ideas look better than they deserve to. It's Edison versus Telsa - Edison was wonderful at making his half-baked idea work well enough in practice, but Tesla knew what he was doing..

The rather dire Blumlein biography that John Larkin posted about here recently puts Blumlein firmly on the Tesla side of that divide - Blumein really did know the theory and used it to inform his practical choices.,

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On January 20, Bill Sloman wrote:
> The flood did seems to start the 24th October, and there were quite a
> lot of ... fake drivers licenses

A drivers license involves very sophisticated technology -
who's making the counterfeits, where does the equipment come from?

Assuming they actually pass the smell test -

--
Rich

On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 14:02:28 -0800 (PST), DemonicTubes
<tlackie@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, January 26, 2024 at 2:09:18?PM UTC-7, john larkin wrote:
>
>
>> >It's like he hurt your feelings 2 decades ago and you have been following him around tossing insults at every opportunity for 20+ years now while he continues to ignore you.
>> He wanted me to hire him, and I didn't.
>
>What a sad way to spend your twilight years.
>
>Thanks for replying, John, I've seen him posting his piss and vinegar against you for all these years and I was always curious what initially set him off.
>
>There are plenty of weirdos posting inane garbage here so it always made me wonder why he constantly singles you of all people out.

Unmoderated forums attract foul people which frequently drives the
good people away. The fact that he's a sad useless old git is arugably
a reason for sympathy, but he's still a jerk.

Some of the posters here have nothing to say except lame insults. What
a life!

Electronics IS hard.

Pardon me if this is a dupe.

On 1/26/24 20:26, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

<snip>

>> He wanted me to hire him, and I didn't.
>
> Not exactly. He posted that he needed help, and I suggested that I'd
be available as a remote - electronic contact only - sub-contractor.
>
> His reaction as to copy the e-mail to Jim Thompson who promptly
posted posted a comment that he'd stopped John Larkin from making a huge
mistake.
>
> That not just "not hiring", but a gross violation of privacy. I
couldn't care less about not being hired - I would have liked to get the
work, though the more John Larkin posts about his approach to design the
less confident I am about my capacity to offer him anything he'd want to
use.
>
> I was mightily peeved about Jim Thompson getting a private e-mail
from me to John Larkin, and that has - quite properly - coloured my
reactions to John Larkin ever since.
>
> He's simply not to be trusted.
<snip>

So, what I'm hearing you say is, you're upset because he tried to "check
your references".

Did you not think that would happen?

Want to blame someone? Blame JT for being public about it.

You on the other hand are attempting to do just what you claim JL did wrong?

Attempting to degrade someone publicly.

Just my 2cents worth. Feel free to blame me for something, if it makes
you feel better.

On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 00:12:27 -0500, jim whitby <jim@afraid.org> wrote:

>Pardon me if this is a dupe.
>
>On 1/26/24 20:26, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
>
><snip>
>
> >> He wanted me to hire him, and I didn't.
> >
> > Not exactly. He posted that he needed help, and I suggested that I'd
>be available as a remote - electronic contact only - sub-contractor.
> >
> > His reaction as to copy the e-mail to Jim Thompson who promptly
>posted posted a comment that he'd stopped John Larkin from making a huge
>mistake.
> >
> > That not just "not hiring", but a gross violation of privacy. I
>couldn't care less about not being hired - I would have liked to get the
>work, though the more John Larkin posts about his approach to design the
>less confident I am about my capacity to offer him anything he'd want to
>use.
> >
> > I was mightily peeved about Jim Thompson getting a private e-mail
>from me to John Larkin, and that has - quite properly - coloured my
>reactions to John Larkin ever since.
> >
> > He's simply not to be trusted.
><snip>
>
>So, what I'm hearing you say is, you're upset because he tried to "check
>your references".
>
>Did you not think that would happen?
>
>Want to blame someone? Blame JT for being public about it.
>
>You on the other hand are attempting to do just what you claim JL did wrong?
>
>Attempting to degrade someone publicly.
>
>Just my 2cents worth. Feel free to blame me for something, if it makes
>you feel better.

Ignore him.

On Saturday, January 27, 2024 at 4:12:44 PM UTC+11, jim whitby wrote:
> Pardon me if this is a dupe.
> On 1/26/24 20:26, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >> He wanted me to hire him, and I didn't.
> >
> > Not exactly. He posted that he needed help, and I suggested that I'd
> be available as a remote - electronic contact only - sub-contractor.
> >
> > His reaction as to copy the e-mail to Jim Thompson who promptly
> posted posted a comment that he'd stopped John Larkin from making a huge
> mistake.
> >
> > That not just "not hiring", but a gross violation of privacy. I
> couldn't care less about not being hired - I would have liked to get the
> work, though the more John Larkin posts about his approach to design the
> less confident I am about my capacity to offer him anything he'd want to
> use.
> >
> > I was mightily peeved about Jim Thompson getting a private e-mail
> from me to John Larkin, and that has - quite properly - coloured my
> reactions to John Larkin ever since.
> >
> > He's simply not to be trusted.
>
> <snip>
>
> So, what I'm hearing you say is, you're upset because he tried to "check your references".

He didn't. Jim Thompson didn't know any more about me than he did - what they both knew was what I'd posted here, and nothing else.

He did it because I wasn't fond of Jim Thompson and Jim Thompson wasn't fond of me - Jim once claimed to have reported me to the FBI for being dangerously anti-American, which was a bizarre misreading of my attitude,

> Did you not think that would happen?

Frankly, no. I knew that John Larkin was a jerk, but hadn't appreciated quite how much of a jerk he was.

> Want to blame someone? Blame JT for being public about it.

Jim Thompson was a total jerk - he seemed to think that his hill-billy antecedents made it obligatory for him to behave badly.

> You on the other hand are attempting to do just what you claim JL did wrong?

Actually , no. All this stuff is in the sci.electronic.design archives, which are searchable. I imagine that Google could find it all pretty quickly. I'm not going to bother looking, but it ought to be there. I've just filled in the bits that John Larkin's version left out.
> Attempting to degrade someone publicly.

Jim Thompson did that to him. If Jim hadn't been a total jerk, he wouldn't have done it

> Just my 2cents worth. Feel free to blame me for something, if it makes you feel better.

I don't feel bad about it at all. John behaved badly, and Jim Thompson made it obvious that John had behaved badly by behaving even worse.

When people you don't much like make it obvious why sensible people don't like them there a certain measure of schadenfreude to be had.

--
Bil Sloman, Sydney