comp.os.linux.networking

On Apr 12, 8:50 am, Unruh wrote:

> David Schwartz writes:

> >On Apr 11, 3:47 pm, Bit Twister wrote:

> >> You can take my word that Moe is pretty honest.

> >I tend not to agree, at least not based on this comment:

> >"NOTE: Posting from groups.google.com (or some web-forums)
> >dramatically
> >reduces the chance of your post being seen. Find a real news server."

> And this is dishonest how?

In that he was unable to back it up with *any* evidence at all. All he
did was repeat it, and that's all you've done.

> Many people have a news filter on google groups
> since so much spam originates there, as he said.

And there, you repeated it. How many is "many"?

> If your post is filtered
> out, it is not seen. If it is not seen it is not answered.

I have been posting from google for many years. I have never had a
post not answered. Never, ever. Perhaps my posts were seen by fewer
people, owing to the people who killfile google. But perhaps they were
seen by more, due to google's excellent propagation. I don't know. But
I don't pretend I do.

> >> For *me*, it would be a server who's abuse admin would terminate the
> >> offender upon complaints and provide the ip of the poster in the
> >> post header. That would allow me to also send abuse complaints
> >> to poster's ISP to see if I could get his account terminated. :-)

> >There are huge trade-offs between privacy, abuse handling, and the
> >availability of human labor. I've seen google strike the balance wrong
> >in each possible direction more than once.
> >I've seen no credible evidence that there's this mass of intelligent
> >people who killfile posts through google. I've been posting through
> >google and other news servers for many, many years and have seen
> >google's reach be precisely the same as everyone else's.

> And anyone who sees the world differently than you do is dishonest?

No, anyone who pretends that their own prejudices are fact, and when
called upon to defend it *repeats* the prejudices is dihonest. If Moe
has any evidence, let's see it. If not, his pretending that what he is
saying is an obvious, well-known fact is dishonest.

> >I'm not as quick to give up on the value of anonymous speech as you
> >are, and if you make the administrative overhead of allowing anonymous
> >speech too high, it will cease to exist. It's very hard for non-free
> >services to offer anonymous speech because a lot of people have no
> >anonymous way to pay.

> But for some reason you do not believe that anonymous speech could be
> misused to throw out garbage into newsgroups?

I do. I know it is. As I said, it's a complex trade off. I've seen
google get it wrong in all directions.

> Note the non-anonymity in
> payment does not necessarily mean non-annonymity in posting.

There are plenty of people in jail who would disagree with you. The
United States is not the whole planet.

DS