Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #586739 > unrolled thread

Google Groups seems to be pretty much dead or on the verge of dying

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Google Groups seems to be pretty much dead or on the verge of dying Louis Savain <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-06-25 21:22 -0700
    Re: Google Groups seems to be pretty much dead or on the verge of dying Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-06-26 00:24 -0400
      Re: Google Groups seems to be pretty much dead or on the verge of dying Louis Savain <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-06-25 21:53 -0700
        Re: Google Groups seems to be pretty much dead or on the verge of dying Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-06-26 08:50 -0500
        Re: Google Groups seems to be pretty much dead or on the verge of dying Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-06-26 13:21 -0400
          Re: Google Groups seems to be pretty much dead or on the verge of dying Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-06-26 13:47 -0400
            Re: Google Groups seems to be pretty much dead or on the verge of dying Apollyon <adravirgo@gmail.com> - 2016-06-26 11:18 -0700
              Re: Google Groups seems to be pretty much dead or on the verge of dying Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-06-26 14:28 -0400
                Re: Google Groups seems to be pretty much dead or on the verge of dying Apollyon <adravirgo@gmail.com> - 2016-06-26 11:32 -0700
                  Re: Google Groups seems to be pretty much dead or on the verge of dying Apollyon <adravirgo@gmail.com> - 2016-06-26 11:51 -0700
                    Re: Google Groups seems to be pretty much dead or on the verge of dying "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-06-27 03:46 -0700
                Re: Google Groups seems to be pretty much dead or on the verge of dying Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-26 12:56 -0700
                  Re: Google Groups seems to be pretty much dead or on the verge of dying Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-06-26 16:05 -0400
                  Re: Google Groups seems to be pretty much dead or on the verge of dying ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-26 16:28 -0500
              Re: Google Groups seems to be pretty much dead or on the verge of dying ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-26 13:56 -0500
                Re: Google Groups seems to be pretty much dead or on the verge of dying HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-26 12:02 -0700
                  Re: Google Groups seems to be pretty much dead or on the verge of dying ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-26 14:06 -0500
                  Re: Google Groups seems to be pretty much dead or on the verge of dying Apollyon <adravirgo@gmail.com> - 2016-06-26 12:51 -0700
                  Re: Google Groups seems to be pretty much dead or on the verge of dying Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-06-26 14:00 -0700
                    Re: Google Groups seems to be pretty much dead or on the verge of dying olli.dp3@gmail.com - 2016-06-26 16:50 -0700
                      Re: Google Groups seems to be pretty much dead or on the verge of dying ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-26 21:09 -0500
                      Re: Google Groups seems to be pretty much dead or on the verge of dying "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-06-26 21:54 -0700
                        Re: Google Groups seems to be pretty much dead or on the verge of dying Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-06-27 12:52 -0700
                          Re: Google Groups seems to be pretty much dead or on the verge of dying "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-06-27 20:10 -0700
            Re: Google Groups seems to be pretty much dead or on the verge of dying Louis Savain <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-06-26 12:03 -0700
        Re: Google Groups seems to be pretty much dead or on the verge of dying Anonymous <anonymous@hoi-polloi.org> - 2016-06-27 20:59 +0200
        Re: Google Groups seems to be pretty much dead or on the verge of dying Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-27 15:30 -0500
    Re: Google Groups seems to be pretty much dead or on the verge of dying jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-26 04:56 +0000
      Re: Google Groups seems to be pretty much dead or on the verge of dying Louis Savain <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-06-25 22:56 -0700
        Re: Google Groups seems to be pretty much dead or on the verge of dying jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-26 17:36 +0000
          Re: Google Groups seems to be pretty much dead or on the verge of dying ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-26 13:46 -0500
            Re: Google Groups seems to be pretty much dead or on the verge of dying jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-26 20:40 +0000
              Re: Google Groups seems to be pretty much dead or on the verge of dying ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-26 17:19 -0500
                Re: Google Groups seems to be pretty much dead or on the verge of dying jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-26 23:31 +0000
          Re: Google Groups seems to be pretty much dead or on the verge of dying moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-26 19:43 +0000
            Re: Google Groups seems to be pretty much dead or on the verge of dying ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-26 16:17 -0500
              Re: Google Groups seems to be pretty much dead or on the verge of dying jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-26 23:32 +0000
                Re: Google Groups seems to be pretty much dead or on the verge of dying Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-06-27 23:39 +0000
                  Re: Google Groups seems to be pretty much dead or on the verge of dying jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-28 00:21 +0000
                  Re: Google Groups seems to be pretty much dead or on the verge of dying Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-28 08:17 -0500
                    Re: Google Groups seems to be pretty much dead or on the verge of dying benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-06-28 19:34 -0400
                      Re: Google Groups seems to be pretty much dead or on the verge of dying jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-29 00:10 +0000
                        Re: Google Groups seems to be pretty much dead or on the verge of dying benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-06-28 20:24 -0400
                          Re: Google Groups seems to be pretty much dead or on the verge of dying jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-29 01:22 +0000
                          Re: Google Groups seems to be pretty much dead or on the verge of dying ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-28 21:56 -0500
                      Re: Google Groups seems to be pretty much dead or on the verge of dying Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 08:31 -0500
      Re: Google Groups seems to be pretty much dead or on the verge of dying Jeremy Bentham <nobody@anemone.mooo.com> - 2016-06-27 21:04 +0200
    Re: Google Groups seems to be pretty much dead or on the verge of dying Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-26 15:28 +1000
      Re: Google Groups seems to be pretty much dead or on the verge of dying Louis Savain <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-06-25 22:51 -0700
        Re: Google Groups seems to be pretty much dead or on the verge of dying Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-06-26 13:27 -0400
        Re: Google Groups seems to be pretty much dead or on the verge of dying Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-28 11:57 +1000
      Re: Google Groups seems to be pretty much dead or on the verge of dying ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-26 12:03 -0500
      Re: Google Groups seems to be pretty much dead or on the verge of dying "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-06-27 09:55 -0700
    Re: Google Groups seems to be pretty much dead or on the verge of dying "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-06-26 00:29 -0700
    Google Groups seems to be pretty much dead or on the verge of dying HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-26 08:46 -0700
    Re: Google Groups seems to be pretty much dead or on the verge of dying Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-06-26 14:20 -0400
      Re: Google Groups seems to be pretty much dead or on the verge of dying Jack Ryan <mixmaster@remailer.cpunk.us> - 2016-06-27 15:25 -0400
    Re: Google Groups seems to be pretty much dead or on the verge of dying Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-06-26 15:52 -0400
      Re: Google Groups seems to be pretty much dead or on the verge of dying Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-27 13:46 -0500

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#587163

On 6/28/2016 9:17 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 6/27/2016 6:39 PM, Fabian Russell wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 23:32:21 +0000, jimp wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> USENET does not require Google or a web browser.
>>>
>>
>> Exactly.
>>
>> Usenet does not require registrations, logins, cookies, javascript,
>> moderation, or any of the other crap that make web forums a total
>> pain in the ass.
>>
>> I can't understand why a lot of physics action has moved to
>> e.g. physicsforums.com when Usenet is far less burdensome and
>> far more open.
>>
>> Human beings are idiots is the only conclusion.
>>
>
> Maybe the things that annoy you don't annoy others so much. Are you so
> arrogant that if others do not share your priorities, then they are wrong?

Odd certainly feels that way!

Ignore Boinker, Fabian. Boinker is all for censorship and control of all 
expression. The censorship on Physics forums is total and severe and 
keeps the establishment views firmly in the public eye. Police states 
run so much better when dissent is never allowed.

Personally I'm banned for life on physics forums for "being a crank"!

So I hear you cry what exactly did I say that was so kooky as to result 
in my total censorship? Maybe I talked about UFOs, or maybe hunting 
ghosts or possibly even hunting Bigfoot? Sorry, comrade, but Progies are 
FAR more thin skinned than that. As it turns out my "offense" was that I 
simply MENTIONED the (now discredited and unpopular) "theory of 
uniformity" in geology. I didn't even voice an opinion for or against 
it. And even better, I did this not in any of the various subject 
forums, but in the "lounge" area. I forgot that big brother is ALWAYS 
watching you no matter where you are! Personally it really surprised me 
that the physics forum moderator had time to write up my ban-notice 
before his meeting of the Hitler youth. I'm sure he was looking forward 
to breaking the windows of lots of Jewish businesses.

Boinker does love "free speech for himself though. He wants to censor 
everyone else, but LOVES to debate "kooks" on usenet. To show what a 
hell of a man he is, sometimes I've seen him taking on 5 or 6 kooks at 
once!  WOW! Counselor is da man!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#587175

benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:

<snip>

> Personally I'm banned for life on physics forums for "being a crank"!

What a surprise.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#587177

On 6/28/2016 8:10 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Personally I'm banned for life on physics forums for "being a crank"!
>
> What a surprise.
>

What a surprise you've joined Boinker and HVAC as a spokesman for the 
party.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#587184

benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
> On 6/28/2016 8:10 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Personally I'm banned for life on physics forums for "being a crank"!
>>
>> What a surprise.
>>
> 
> What a surprise you've joined Boinker and HVAC as a spokesman for the 
> party.

What party is that?
 

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#587193

On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 20:24:03 -0400, benj wrote:

> On 6/28/2016 8:10 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Personally I'm banned for life on physics forums for "being a crank"!
>>
>> What a surprise.
>>
> 
> What a surprise you've joined Boinker and HVAC as a spokesman for the 
> party.

He isn't spokesman for shit. The sumtotal of
everything he has posted in the past 20 years is shit.
A nuisance only to be tolerated. 

I suspect he is living with his 110 year old Mexican
Mom and "cooks" for her. And has a toy plane that he
keeps reading about :) 

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#587218

On 6/28/2016 6:34 PM, benj wrote:
> Boinker does love "free speech for himself though. He wants to censor
> everyone else, but LOVES to debate "kooks" on usenet. To show what a
> hell of a man he is, sometimes I've seen him taking on 5 or 6 kooks at
> once!  WOW! Counselor is da man!

Do you believe that people ought to be allowed to float any ideas at all 
without being challenged for data or supporting evidence? Do you think 
that debating those ideas is tantamount to censorship?

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586950

In article <ms344d-nri.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
> Louis Savain <mapou001@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Most of the old usenet denizens have either passed away or moved to
> > greener pastures. It's time that Google retire this service, IMO.
>
> USENET is not part of Google and Google dropping it's gateway to USENET
> would rid us of a LOT of idiot posters.

This is so obviously true. I think that in the future some 
scientists may resurrect ancient usenet posts and compare usenet 
before and after Google decided to try and monetize it for 
themselves. There might be some cogent insights gotten from such a 
study.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586746

On 26/06/2016 2:22 PM, Louis Savain wrote:
> Most of the old usenet denizens have either passed away or moved to greener pastures. It's time that Google retire this service, IMO.
>


No one's forcing you to use Google Groups (being just a gateway to 
Usenet). If it no longer gives you value, then stop using it. Why would 
you want it retired? Are you worried that something of value will appear 
on it that you'll miss?

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586748

On Saturday, June 25, 2016 at 10:28:38 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 26/06/2016 2:22 PM, Louis Savain wrote:
> > Most of the old usenet denizens have either passed away or moved to greener pastures. It's time that Google retire this service, IMO.
> >
> 
> 
> No one's forcing you to use Google Groups (being just a gateway to 
> Usenet). If it no longer gives you value, then stop using it. Why would 
> you want it retired? Are you worried that something of value will appear 
> on it that you'll miss?
> 
> Sylvia.

No need to be hostile. It's just my opinion. Take it or leave it. I used to be on usenet way back in the 90s when it was the only good way to communicate on the net. Now it's all crap. Lots of other networks like Reddit, Quora, Digg and others make Google Groups and usenet look like sending smoke signals.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586773

On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 22:51:57 -0700 (PDT), Louis Savain wrote:

>On Saturday, June 25, 2016 at 10:28:38 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 26/06/2016 2:22 PM, Louis Savain wrote:
>> > Most of the old usenet denizens have either passed away or moved to greener pastures. It's time that Google retire this service, IMO.
>> >
>> 
>> 
>> No one's forcing you to use Google Groups (being just a gateway to 
>> Usenet). If it no longer gives you value, then stop using it. Why would 
>> you want it retired? Are you worried that something of value will appear 
>> on it that you'll miss?
>> 
>> Sylvia.
>
>No need to be hostile. 

What in her reply was hostile?

>It's just my opinion. Take it or leave it. 

The latter then.

>I used to be on usenet way back in the 90s 

So you went away for a while and now you're back?

Why did you come back?

Now you would have the infrastructure shut down and prevent others
from coming back?

>when it was the only good way to communicate on the net. Now it's all crap. Lots of other networks like Reddit, Quora, Digg and others 

... none of which, for me, are as convenient as using a newsreader.

>make Google Groups and usenet look like sending smoke signals.

... and yet, here you are.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#587044

On 26/06/2016 3:51 PM, Louis Savain wrote:
> On Saturday, June 25, 2016 at 10:28:38 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 26/06/2016 2:22 PM, Louis Savain wrote:
>>> Most of the old usenet denizens have either passed away or moved
>>> to greener pastures. It's time that Google retire this service,
>>> IMO.
>>>
>>
>>
>> No one's forcing you to use Google Groups (being just a gateway to
>> Usenet). If it no longer gives you value, then stop using it. Why
>> would you want it retired? Are you worried that something of value
>> will appear on it that you'll miss?
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> No need to be hostile. It's just my opinion. Take it or leave it. I
> used to be on usenet way back in the 90s when it was the only good
> way to communicate on the net. Now it's all crap. Lots of other
> networks like Reddit, Quora, Digg and others make Google Groups and
> usenet look like sending smoke signals.
>

Looks to me as if you're confusing bloat with value.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586771

On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 15:28:33 +1000, Sylvia Else wrote:

> On 26/06/2016 2:22 PM, Louis Savain wrote:
>> Most of the old usenet denizens have either passed away or moved to greener pastures. It's time that Google retire this service, IMO.
>>
> 
> 
> No one's forcing you to use Google Groups (being just a gateway to 
> Usenet). If it no longer gives you value, then stop using it. Why would 
> you want it retired? Are you worried that something of value will appear 
> on it that you'll miss?
> 
> Sylvia.

My dick alone can keep usenet going. But I'll get a
job soon and I'll be history to you for a few more
years. 
--
  "Fishing for sport is for gay country boys who 
   want to look cool in their society."
                 - Clutterfreak

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586932

Ihave used sci.physics to air my thoughts,and to read what other people have to say on subjects of interest.Who ever now controls what we say is should be fired.He or she is a low wit. TreBert Ps posting for over 23 years

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586753

On Sunday, June 26, 2016 at 7:22:05 AM UTC+3, Louis Savain wrote:
> Most of the old usenet denizens have either passed away or moved to greener pastures. It's time that Google retire this service, IMO.

======================
I would not say
'all of it '
I would better say
TOO MUCH OF IT IS NONSENCE GARBAGE 
-----------------------
massless particles 

relativistic mass 

mass less photons 

many shells of electrons'

'the ;;single photon energy definition'

curved space 

electrons rotating around the Nuc'

etc etc etc 
 
TIA
Y.Porat
==============================
ATB
Y.Porat

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586767

Louis Savain
Most of the old usenet denizens have either passed away or moved to greener pastures. It's time that Google retire this service, IMO. 
--------

Louis is a gay name. Now gtfo

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586779

On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 21:22:02 -0700 (PDT), Louis Savain wrote:

>Most of the old usenet denizens have either passed away or moved to greener pastures. It's time that Google retire this service, IMO.

Maybe you would like to post a comment on this web-based forum:

http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2014/07/1112-louis-savain.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586953

In article <2270nb1n7pgaldmbksqv9osaf432ee2qrq@4ax.com>
Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 21:22:02 -0700 (PDT), Louis Savain wrote:
>
> >Most of the old usenet denizens have either passed away or moved to greener pastures. It's time that Google retire this service, IMO.
>
> Maybe you would like to post a comment on this web-based forum:
>
> http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2014/07/1112-louis-savain.html

Thanks for that link, and the web page. That link is going in all 
of my replies to that crank from now on.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586801

On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 21:22:02 -0700 (PDT), Louis Savain
<mapou001@gmail.com> wrote:

>Most of the old usenet denizens have either passed away or moved to greener pastures. It's time that Google retire this service, IMO.

Its time that ISPs brought back Usenet newsgroups (at least the text
groups) so we don't have to wade through a clumsy and slow interface
like "Google Groups" in order to participate in coherent discussion
forums with "Threading" and Replies with Original message quoting
(unlike Facebook). When you try to explain the utility of these
features to someone drinking the Facebook cool aid its like you're
speaking a different language. When the Internet first went public in
the nineties, all ISPs carried these groups as they were considered
one of the triads of the Internet (email, newsgroups, & web). Now, due
to choking with binaries & porn, most ISPs have dropped even these
text groups and nothing on the web has adequately replaced them.

Mike
---------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Strickland			Reston, VA
---------------------------------------------------

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586947

On 6/26/2016 2:52 PM, Michael J. Strickland wrote:
> Its time that ISPs brought back Usenet newsgroups (at least the text
> groups) so we don't have to wade through a clumsy and slow interface
> like "Google Groups" in order to participate in coherent discussion
> forums with "Threading" and Replies with Original message quoting
> (unlike Facebook). When you try to explain the utility of these
> features to someone drinking the Facebook cool aid its like you're
> speaking a different language. When the Internet first went public in
> the nineties, all ISPs carried these groups as they were considered
> one of the triads of the Internet (email, newsgroups, & web). Now, due
> to choking with binaries & porn, most ISPs have dropped even these
> text groups and nothing on the web has adequately replaced them.
>
> Mike
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Michael J. Strickland			Reston, VA
> ---------------------------------------------------

I don't understand your comment. I access usenet easily without using 
Google Groups, and so of course I'm not bound by its limitations. Why 
can't you?

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web