This group...

Is this group in the prosess of die down ? Hence the amount of spam thats been starting to flow......

In the dim and distant past on Sat, 28 Jun 2003 08:01:25 GMT, it was rumoured that "Freddy Paulsen" spake thus on the subject of "This group..." in alt.tv.futurama:

I see spam in just about every group these days.

As for the form of your post:

This is usenet, no html needed, okay?

"Bart Van Hemelen" wrote in message news:[email]...

What is wrong with html? I find there nothing against it.

On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 17:10:42 GMT, "- PS2net2021 -" spewed forth:

This is usenet, not the web. Not everyone uses crap like Outlook.

"Rev. Bleech_" wrote in message news:[email]...

It's a pity that the 'crap' is more versatile (able to view html) than the far 'superior' newsreaders.

"Welcome to Computing with Uncle Bob! Hi Bob!" "Hi Clair!" "So, What are we going to learn about today?" "We're going to learn about the Internet today Clair!" "Wow! That's great Bob! What part of the Internet are we learning about today?" "Today Clair, We're going to learn about one of the oldest parts of the Intermet. It's called Usenet!" "Usenet.. I can't say I've heard of that." "The original name for Newsgroups Clair. It came way before the invention of the Web" "BEFORE the web Bob? How can that be? I thought the Internet WAS the web Bob?" "Not true Clair! The Web is one of the most recent parts of the Internet. It uses what is known as HTML" "HTML? I use that on newsgroups and in my email Bob! That doesn't make sense!" "That's where you're getting confused Clair. HTML is made for the web. It's only Microsoft who think that it's for emails and usenet as well" "So that explains why we're getting so many messages with all those funky brackets then?" "Exactly!" "But I thought Microsoft was great? I thought that they were always right, and everybody loved them?" "Not so.. Microsoft in fact 'took over' the Internet with their 'HTML' ways. They seem to have forgotten that Usenet and Email have been invented long before HTML, and that the whole point of it is that it can be displayed on any computer anywhere in the world. Even those old ones with 2 colours and doesn't run windows" "That's amazing Bob! What happens then if I post HTML messages on my local newsgroup, say, alt.tv.futurama?" "You will be flamed, and I will have to do another episode of Computing with Uncle Bob!" "Wow - that's fantastic Bob! We're out of time now, so I'm going to have to say goodbye, until next time!" "Goodbye Clair!" "Goodbye Bob!"

yeah html sux ;)

In article , Clair wrote:

LOL or should I say <font color=#ff0000><big><b>LOL</b></big></font>

You forgot to center, tablize it and add unnecessary line breaks here and there, but otherwise, it's right on...

Jason Saslow wrote:

And he forgot to add graphics and custom fonts that noone else has installed on their system (Or doesn't exist on UNIX/Linux/Mac/Wossname systems).

Best Wishes Thomas

In the dim and distant past on Mon, 30 Jun 2003 19:56:10 -0400, it was rumoured that Jason Saslow spake thus on the subject of "Re: This group..." in alt.tv.futurama:

Marquee! Blink! ;-)

On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 14:06:15 -0700, "Drewdawg" spewed forth:

My far 'superior' newsreader doesn't catch any of the two dozen or so viruses that exploit Outlook's many many many vulnerabilities. Why anyone would use it when they don't have to, I'll never know.

I've never caught a virus with OE and none of the exploits or vulnerabilities have affected me because it's very easy to stop such things from happening while using OE.

On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 08:29:48 GMT, "Dirtyred" spewed forth:

It's not even remotely *possible* for me to get any of them with Agent.

In news: [email], someone let Rev. Bleech_ loose on on a computer... and the unfortunate result was:

Sigh. The never ending pointless debate. :) Normally I wouldn't weigh into these sort of threads... but I have to say that I have never, ever, had a virus/trojan due to using OE. Never. FWIW, I also use mainly Agent, Newsbinpro for Usenet when using Windows, primarily for binary work. For text... quite frankly I prefer OE, for me it is simply the cleanest/tidiest way to go through many newsgroups quickly and with minimum fuss. I'm no M.S fan but I have to admit I do like OE... the default settings suck (html, preview etc etc) but then with all the other newsreaders I need to tweak them as well anyway.

I�ve tried many newsreaders and I don�t like any of them as much as OE. But that doesn�t change the fact that HTML belongs on the web and not in Usenet text newsgroups.

Tony Sivori wrote:

Agreed, HTML for private emails is a choise of taste, but on a public forum like unsenet news it's a nono. Using plain text postings is the same thing as posting in english, it should be simple and readable by the largest possible audience without problems...

Best Wishes Thomas

You probably also drive your single-digit MPG SUV two blocks down to the store to get milk too. After all they're so much more versatile, we should use them all the time.

"Lone Locust of the Apocalypse" wrote in message news:mE1Ma.18970$[email]...

If that's the case, I'm definitely not buying it. It's a shame that Nettwerk have decided to go with the crippleware "let's treat all our customers like suspects" approach. What really annoys me are the people who think themselves superior because they use software solely on the grounds that it's not Microsoft.

Guess what... not everyone uses OE (and remember, it's not Outlook tha supports usenet, it's Outlook Express) because they're a total noobie who couldn't spot a network cable if it bit them on the ass. A lot of us appreciate its integration with our primary mail client, and its simplicity. So before you start generalizing, why not stop and actually think, for a change?

I'm not attacking Microsoft users. I'm attacking the justification "It's more versatile so it's better always."

I mean, every "I'm on my way over to pick you up, be there in 15 minutes" telephone call should be made on a videophone, right?

Doug Tabacco wrote:

LoL, to be honnest with you, if a cable jumped up and bit me in the ass I would probably not suggest it was a network cable as my first guess ;)

Best Wishes Thomas

Use a web browser and go to google groups ;)

On 28 Jun 2003 17:34:37 -0700, [email] (Junky) spewed forth:

Er, Google Groups isn't usenet.

Outlook doesn't have anything to do with it. HTML takes up much more server space than ascii messages. The 15 lines this post uses (to this point) in this format would take up 30+ lines of code using something else.

Look at it this way. You can have 1000 messages currently on the server in ascii, or 300 in HTML. There's only so much space allotted for any given group, why selfishly use up that server space when it's not necessary?

"Yeinkiijo" wrote in message news:[email]...

Thank you for clearing that up and putting it in a simple manner.

On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 02:46:49 GMT, Yeinkiijo spewed forth:

Well, it kinda does. In that a great number of people on usenet don't use it (or crap like Netscape) for usenet and, hence, can't see HTML messages anyway. Otherwise though...

"Rev. Bleech_" wrote in message news:[email]...

HTML is used in many contexts other than web pages. Many newsreaders other than OE can interpret it. It's a decent mark up language. The negative is that it can contain links that send requests to URLs that track your activity.

How does that alter the fact that one HTML formatted post can knock dozens, even hundreds, of other posts off of the server prematurely to make room for it?

Do you need a picture drawn out for you?

|_____________________________________________________|
                Allotted server space

|__|__|___|__|____|__|___|___|____|__|__|___|__|___|__|
                ASCII formatted posts

|______________________|_____________|________________|
                HTML formatted posts

|______________________|__|___|__|____|__|____|___|___|
                What happens with one HTML post

Get the message? HTML and other binaries like it don't belong on Usenet unless unless the group was specifically set up for them.

It has absolutely nothing to do with what kind of news reader you're using, or how much disc space you have on your computer. It's the server that contains the messages, and when you take up more than your fair share of available space on the spool, you're doing nothing but showing the world how much of a self centered, clueless, selfish asshole you can be.

Keep it in e-mail or the web, but not in the discussion groups.

Yeinkiijo wrote in message news:...

Hundreds? Most HTML formatted posts dont really change the size that dramatically. And when I say most, I mean pretty much all.

Nice pictures :) but... If you really want to check out posts that have disappeared from servers, go to google groups. From what I read on the help page, "Google Groups contains the entire archive of Usenet discussion groups dating back to 1981."

Do you even know what HTML is? Its not a binary. It's just text. That makes it portable, simple, and small.

You know, I've seen a lot of people waste a lot more space simply by appending long signatures to the end of every post they put up. Why doesn't anyone start flaming them?

I have a feeling that I'm about to get flamed, so if I've offended anyone or made any stupid mistakes I'm sorry in advance.

Phew! Now then, who's up for some FUTURAMA????

I wouldn't have to, since without HTML in the usenet i could just contact my usenet server for the last 4-5 years.

Check this out: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0017_01C33D5C.58E7AED0" That's a snippet of the header of the message that originated this thread.

A HTML message is a multipart message, not unlike a post contaning a binary attachment. Admittedly not exactly a binary, the mechanism carrying the html formatted text is the same that carries the binary. And that includes the risk that servers that drop binaries might drop the html off the message if they can't recognise it as a html post.

Well, that doesn't matter to me in this group anyway since my server only carries the last 3 days of any groups in the alt.-hierarchy.

Fatso Huuskonen wrote in message news:...

My apologies. I was just pointing out that posts don't just disappear cause of big fat HTML posts pushing them off servers, and there are a number of ways to access the archived posts.

Text is text. It doesn't have to be english, or any other language. The snippet above is still text, even though it looks like jibberish to many (including me;).

Junky wrote:

I love tautologies. They prove nothing, yet people keep using them.

When people use the word text, they mean a file containing only a set of alphanumeric characters (usually ASCII) without any formatting or metadata. A program can be opened in a text viewer, but it still isn't text even though it might contain some. HTML is essentially the same. All of the 'pretty' formatting is wasted on usenet because it simply wasn't designed for it.

Junky wrote:

Eh? Open a message in a bin newsgroup, and what will you see? TEXT! and as you states, it will look like jibberish, but it will still be text (but a hell of a lot of it). Anything carried over usenet is encoding into text that is included in the message. Why? Becosue usenet was only mean to be used with plain text... go figure..

Best Wishes Thomas

"Yeinkiijo" wrote in message news:[email]...

other

Space is cheap, get a better server. No whining.

What do you mean by that? Do you even know what a server is? It's not something an individual buys, it's something used by the host ISP and is accessed by thousands, or millions (worldwide), depending on the group.

Before you flame, find out what you're talking about first. You're just proving just how clueless you really are.

"Yeinkiijo" wrote in message news:[email]...

You're clueless if you think you have to use the news server provided by Earthlink. Search google or upgrade your ISP.

A Bag Of Memes wrote:

You're stupid if you think that peole should change news servers just to accommodate idiots who want to use HTML in newsgroups. HTML has no place on usenet, regardless of whether certain poorly-written newsreaders are capable of rendering it.

"Exatron" wrote in message news:[email]...

What did I say about whining?

To all you neanderthal anti-html knuckle-draggers:

With plain text I couldn't say:

THERE AIN'T NOTHING WRONG WITH HTML.

With even a fraction of the emphasis. Please recheck you calendar, it should indicate 21st century. Your ancestors doubtless were reluctant to give up the stone tablets for papyrus. Learn from their foolishness.

On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 19:46:43 -0500, "Herb Kauhry" spewed forth:

AOL discussion groups are thattaway --> <bold><flash>LOL OMFG</flash></bold>

So this is what it's going to take: killfile or otherwise ignore all people who post in HTML and who top-post.

What's wrong with top post ?

<http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/brox.html>

In alt.tv.futurama, on the "Re: This group..." thread, Herb Kauhry wrote:

Not anymore, it isn't.

If your argument is not convincing in plain text, it isn't going to be any more effective in big blinking red letters. People should spend more time on reasoning and less on typesetting.

Actually, a lot of HTML posters don't even do that. Their posts come across in 10-point Arial on a white background because that just happens to be the default for their news client. In other words, their posts look almost exactly the same to an HTML-aware program as a plain text post, only with the added bonus of pointlessly wasting space.

It's not a cardinal Usenet sin, but HTML posting ought to count as a venal one.

A Bag Of Memes wrote:

And if that isn't an option? Why should everyone have to look for other newsservers becouse someone wants to use HTML where he isn't supposed to? Will the person posting in HTML pay for our new news service that we need to swritch to becosue of him?

"Thomas Andersson" wrote in message news:behah2$46qsf$[email]...

to

Will you ever stop whining?

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 04:02:56 GMT, "A Bag Of Memes" wrote:

People like Thomas are consistently putting across valid arguments for their case which you consistently ignore. The only person 'whining' is you. Grow up idiot.

Will you ever realize that it's you, and not the rest of the usenet community, that's wrong on this issue?

"Yeinkiijo" wrote in message news:[email]...

Most of the "usenet community" are using OE and don't shriek at the sight of angle brackets. It's only a few self appointed usenet purists who whine at the sight of angle brackets.

A Bag Of Memes wrote:

You're either lying or stupid.

No, it's a large majority of users who actually understand that HTML is for webpages, not usenet messages. A minority of people who happen to use a certain software monopoly's pitiful excuse for a newsreader can't change that.

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 05:34:58 GMT, "Exatron" spewed forth:

You know, when you can easily go out and buy a Mac or download/purchase-for-less-than-$20 any of the myriad alternatives to Windows, the monopoly argument doesn't hold up.

Er, didn't want to derail this thread. Or maybe I did. Who knows.

Rev.Bleech wrote:

Acutally, it does. Even with alternatives available, most people still have to deal with Microsoft's garbage. Businesses use Microsoft's proprietary file formats for documents, most commercial software is made with Microsoft's operating system in mind, and Microsoft has gone to great lengths to ensure that even open standards work differently on Microsoft products.

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 16:14:29 GMT, "Exatron" spewed forth:

You know, the phrase "alternative available" and "monopoly" just don't go together at all.

OpenOffice is quite capable of using those "proprietary" file formats.

Rev.Bleech wrote:

Actually, they go together quite well, especially in this case since Microsoft's marketshare is sufficiently large that the alternatives are mostly ignored by the general populace.

OpenOffice only has a limited ability to read and write Microsoft Office file formats. They're still proprietary and subject to the whims of Microsoft even after someone has deciphered the released versions.

Microsoft is undeniably a monopoly, and an abusive one at that.

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 21:40:44 GMT, "Exatron" spewed forth:

The ignorance of the public does not a monopoly make. What's Apple's excuse ?

I have yet to hear of anyone having problems with anything other than Access.

Only for those who have a general hard-on for big businesses or are too lazy to go after something else.

Cz�ek zwany A Bag Of Memes napisa�:

Most of people who I know, use OE nad respect the rules of usenet, so they hate html on newsgroups.

I'm afraid, there's more of us than "only a few".

You can't beat us! Join us!!

"Skrypek" wrote in message news:bem21r$943$[email]...

Most of the people I know who use OE don't give a rat's ass about HTML on usenet.

Resistance is futile?

Resistance is detrimental to Usenet.

Cz�ek zwany A Bag Of Memes napisa�:

It seems you hang out with the wrong people.

Yes, you will be assimilated.

(.. or destroyed ]:-> )

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 13:33:16 GMT, "A Bag Of Memes" spewed forth:

Because only the ignorant/foolish/oblivious would want to use OE for anything in the first place.

"Rev. Bleech_" wrote in message news:[email]... <...>

Don't forget Lazy. Some are just lazy and can't really give a damn.

Only in your opinion, and until you can substantiate your claims, that's all it is. You're like a broken record. Every time someone tells you that using such a graphic intensive text format wastes the space on the news servers, which are owned and operated by the host Internet Provider, and the other providers that carry those groups, and NOT the individual users, and you go right back to crying about what news readers can handle what text. Aren't you paying any fucking attention at all? News readers are NOT the issue here.

And those "self appointed usenet purists" may oppose your ignorant, if not outlandish ideas about what Usenet is all about, but we seem to outnumber you greatly. Why do you think that is?

"Bag of trolls"- How appropriate!

"Yeinkiijo" wrote in message news:[email]...

sight of

at

I ignore whining about the cost of bytes. Have you priced bytes lately?

It gives us both pleasure.

On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 03:19:14 GMT, "A Bag Of Memes" spewed forth:

It's not our bytes. Have you got it yet ? Will it ever get through that adding a size 6 flashing "LOL" to your messages will probably keep the server from retaining something WORTH reading ?

Rev. Bleech_ wrote:

It's not stupidity that powers his arguments.

He just hasn't realized yet that a single byte adds up to a few kilobytes when his post is peered to news servers around the world, and propably to a few megabytes when all the private peers and newsgroup readers kick in. Therefor his "a few bytes" argumentation.

He furthermore doesn't know yet that unneccesary use of HTML adds not just a few bytes but even a few kilobytes to a message. Thus multiplying the effect, leading to several megabytes or even gigabytes of wasted bandwidth.

He doesn't know yet that the average news server measures its daily incoming traffic and storage space in gigabytes, therefor his "space is cheap" and "get another server" argumentation.

And, finally, he doesn't know the difference between a discussion and an accusation yet. Therefor his "whining" argumentation.

He's not stupid, he just lacks the basic facts about usenet and some discussion experience. That's all. And while you keep attacking him he will bite back. For what I've seen that's a typical human reaction up to a certain age. If you give him some time to breathe he might start reconsidering his point, update his knowledge, and see a little bit clearer then.

• Freddy

"Freddy Leitner" wrote in message news:beotg1$7ec7e$[email]...

Let's do the math then. Let's say drive space is $1/gigabyte, mirrored is $2/gigabyte and the average lifespan of that drive space is 5 years. If HTML formatting adds 1000 bytes to the average message and it lives on an ISP drive for a week Average life of a drive is 5 years, so one week's storage of 1000 bytes costs .000004 cents per ISP. So 250,000 HTML messages will add 1 penny per ISP.

A Bag Of Memes wrote:

Fine. I'll not go very deep into the fact that you left all my other points completely untouched. Furthermore I'll stick to your numbers, even though...

... news servers aren't just disks conveniently placed on the corner of a street...

... the usual server hard disk's lifespan is much shorter, ...

... postings containing HTML at least double the text message (because they carry the text content twice), not counting in any HTML formatting yet, ...

... hold times for postings usually lie between 30 and 90 days, ...

... which is exactly the monetary amount YOU spend on a posting (by paying your ISP). All that lies beyond is OTHER PEOPLE'S money you spend.

What money there is beyond, you ask? Well, let's add some numbers to your example. Let's say there are 500 ISPs worldwide. Let's furthermore say there are about 100 readers per ISP. Which all three are VERY, VERY low assumptions, especially for high-traffic newsgroups. This example sums up to 50000 people getting your message, deliberately or not. According to your calculation, you are wasting 0.2 cents of other people's money with every HTML post - just on disk space.

0.2 Cents! Petty!

Let's add another number, shall we? The usual wholesale transfer cost per GB is around $5. Summing it all up, a 1000 byte overhead going around to the hosts above will take up about 4.8 MB in data transfer. So you are wasting another 2.3 cents of other people's money. We are still not considering any technicalities like the host machines, their buildings and the people that are keeping them running.

2.5 Cents! Well, that isn't hellishly much, is it?

Multiply it with 250.000 then.

HTML messages certainly aren't much in times where people mistake binary groups for convenient ways to spread CD-sized movies in. But on the other hand, unlike binaries they also don't add anything of worth to a text message.

Usenet has been here long before HTML, the web, and the internet. And even though it's not something that will happen in the next days I'm quite certain usenet will revert to a "former state" it has been before the binary groups kicked in - if their "abuse" still rises like it currently does. HTML will be one of the collateral damages if attachments will be rejected or swept from the servers - which is what some of the larger usenet servers are already doing... now.

• Freddy, tired.

"Rev. Bleech_" wrote in message news:[email]...

whine

that's

at

They are our bytes. Where do you think ISPs get the money to buy more bytes?

Cz�ek zwany A Bag Of Memes napisa�:

But they will not use it to buy more bytes! The oldest messages will be deleted from their servers! If you can't understand that, you're an idiot.

"Skrypek" wrote in message news:bep9uu$ak5$[email]...

There's no need to call names. ISPs compete on service level. If your ISP deletes messages faster than you like, get another ISP, or pay for a better newsfeed. Competition forces them to allocate drive space appropriate to the traffic.

The space used by HTML is dwarfed by the binary groups. If you think too much of your ISP bill is going to drive space you should focus on those.

Cz�ek zwany A Bag Of Memes napisa�:

You must be selfish or not very well informed. You should know, that not everyone is so lucky to have the ability to choose from a variety of news servers, and ISPs. There are people on this world, who can only read newsgroups, but cannot post; there are people, who don't have any acces to binary groups; there are people, who can leech from binaries, but cannot send them... sometimes beacuse of their univeristy network's policy and sometimes because the server's policy against a university network. Last, but not least, there are dial-up users on this world, who would like to download as much information, and as little useless tags or attachments from newsgroups. Do you want to make other peoples' lives harder, by using worthless text formatting? That's not what usenet was created for. Think about it.

"Skrypek" wrote in message news:bepdbf$gts$[email]...

choose

Who are these people who can't pay for their own newsfeed? Are they in prison or something?

So we should reject the ability to mark up text because some folks still have a 300 baud modem? I don't agree. Dial up is fast enough to handle HTML messages without noticeable delay (if you disable graphic links). HTML itself adds very little to a message.

Text formatting isn't worthless. I don't want to make anyone's lives harder. Think about it.

and how much space does the idiotic crybaby rants about "don't use HTML, waa, waa, waa" waste?

"Yeinkiijo" wrote in message news:[email]...

Significantly less than top-posters and HTML-posters.

On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 19:39:06 -0500, "Herb Kauhry" spewed forth:

How much of our precious oxygen are *you* wasting ?

"Herb Kauhry" wrote in message news:[email]...

If it stops HTML postings then it'll be well worth it.

I realize it's a futile attempt though.

That comparison, kind sir, is an insult to crap everywhere...

This is what the original post looked like to me, using ( and ) as substitutes for grater-then and less-then. Instead of being fancy and expressive, it looks like it's been beaten by an ugly stick. And this is one of the least offensive html post I have seen, mostly because the content isn't in html. ...................................................................

Is this group in the prosess of die down ? Hence the amount of spam thats been starting to flow......

Ok. I didn't thought that this message would cause such much wrath. I was just looking through the settings in OE, and thought it wouldn't hurt to set the style to html, as I've never use such thing as font style, pictures etc in any message, even e-mail. As you can see, I've reset this setting back to plain text. Sorry for all the trouble I've caused....

in article 3i2Ma.537975$[email], Freddy Paulsen at [email] wrote on 6/30/03 2:51 PM:

Thanks, it is appreciated.

You learned that you did something wrong, admitted doing a no-no, and learned from the experience so that you don't make the same error again. That's a very mature attitude that will make you welcome in any group you visit. Thank you so much.

Making a mistake is just human. Throwing ignorant, denial based tantrums when corrected is what identifies people as screaming morons.

"Freddy Paulsen" wrote in message news:3i2Ma.537975$[email]...

set

etc

to

And it answered your original question: Yes A.T.F. is in the process of dieing down. It has been since the end of the last actual season.

"Michael Zaite" wrote in news:Vz9Ma.21644$[email]:

But ... the season's not over! Still five new episodes to go!

"UsualNoise" wrote in message news:[email]...

I refer to the Pre-McSeason times. The last episode of that being "I Dated A Robot" (3ACV15) on 5/13/01. From then on airing has been erratic and frequently preempted and really helped break down the once rich online community. I remember it well. "I was there, at the dawn of the first age of Futurama." Before it even aired. I'm not sure that community that's left could crack FAL2 if they had to from scratch. To many have moved on. And the Usenet was never as big as the Web Boards fan wise. PEEL still has a good post count but it's not the same fan community it was back in 2000.

In the dim and distant past on Tue, 01 Jul 2003 06:08:53 GMT, it was rumoured that "Michael Zaite" spake thus on the subject of "Re: This group..." in alt.tv.futurama:

But the presence of spam isn't a reliable indicator for that. I see the same spam in several other groups I visit, most of them very active ones.

"Bart Van Hemelen" wrote in message news:[email]...

No but the presence of petty bickering that goes on way too long is a pretty good indicator.