comp.os.linux.networking

On Apr 10, 6:21 pm, Dave Uhring wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 17:38:53 -0700, David Schwartz wrote:

> > On Apr 10, 4:23 pm, Dave Uhring wrote:

> >> Many of us simply killfile posts containing "Message-ID:
> >> googlegroups.com" due to the immense amount of spam and other abuse
> >> originating there.

> > 1) Who is "us"?

> Are you some kind of moron?

It's a serious question. Who are you talking about? It obviously
doesn't include you, since you read my post, and I usually post from
Google.

> > 2) Clearly you don't since you are replying to me, so this is some "us"
> > that doesn't include you?

> For the time being only comp.os.linux.misc has a score of -9999 for posts
> from google in my scorefile.

In other words, this is an "us" that doesn't include you.

> > 3) Do you have any evidence that this "many of us" consists of anything
> > more than a couple of cranks?

> I need no evidence, why do you?

Because you are the one making a claim, and I am the skeptic. If you
don't have any evidence to support your claim, why should anyone take
it seriously?

> Calling people who choose to block spam
> as "cranks" is not really polite.

What you mean is calling people cranks *because* they choose to block
spam is not really polite. As far as I know, I have never done this.
Calling people cranks because they advise others to block spam in ways
that cause significant collateral damage, on the other hand, is quite
reasonable.

I'm not sure why this matters though, because this discussion is about
how many people block google groups, not about whether it's a good
idea or a bad idea to do so.

> > 4) The claim that google is somehow not a "real news server" is just
> > bizarre prejudice, akin to arguing that anything without a floppy drive
> > is not a "real computer".

> It's no more bizarre than your questions.

> Google is a spam sewer and Moe's advice is useful and proper. I don't
> give a flying fuck if you get blocked or not. Use a real news service if
> you care about the maximum number of interested people seeing your
> articles. Or not.

You have repeated your claim rather than presented evidence for it.
What is a "real" news service? One that meets with your personal
approval?

DS