Re: Responsibility for the health of Usenet
02 Nov 2009 16:09:18 +0000 (GMT)
Tony <tony@darkstorm.invalid> wrote:
> Yes, this is a definite issue. The first possible solution there then
> is to provide an actual web interface to a local nntp server, and you
> could get away with writing the interface in javascript. Basically,
> get the google groups solution right.
That sounds like a ...
|
Re: Responsibility for the health of Usenet
Mon, 02 Nov 2009 14:59:10 +0000
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 14:39:44 +0000 (UTC), Tony <tony@darkstorm.invalid>
wrote:
>> have to navigate to a news server using a different means of locating
>> the server. Then one has to pay for access (even if the payment is
>> tiny). ISPs are rapidly backing away from providing news access,
>> presumably scared of ...
|
Re: Responsibility for the health of Usenet (was Re: Questions for Chibal)
Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:36:24 +0000
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 12:54:56 +0000 (UTC), Tony <tony@darkstorm.invalid>
wrote:
>This won't help at all, but NewsTap in the iPhone is a good-enough
>nntp app, doesn't use the browser and it's iPhone only. See, told
>you it wouldn't help :)
This won't help either, but another nntp client I'd give a nod to is
G ...
|
Re: Responsibility for the health of Usenet (was Re: Questions for Chibal)
02 Nov 2009 11:21:12 +0000 (GMT)
In article <dtete5l8eehomgmil46uinbgra1prgcq65@4ax.com>,
.m <nospam@notnominet.name> wrote:
>While this is understandable, you/her must also recognise the
>suspicion that will be raised when such an anonymous poster pops in
>with what appears to be a wholly concomitant agenda to those of the
>Chiark?
Absolute ...
|
Re: Responsibility for the health of Usenet (was Re: Questions for Chibal)
Mon, 02 Nov 2009 10:47:18 +0000
Geoff Berrow <blthecat@ckdog.co.uk> writes:
> The time wasted on arguing the urcm proposal and these committee
> elections would have been better spent trying to work out some way
> we can keep Usenet as a viable entity. There is nothing like it on
> the Internet.
I think that's exactly what people _are_ doi ...
|
Re: Responsibility for the health of Usenet (was Re: Questions for Chibal)
Mon, 02 Nov 2009 10:29:05 +0000
On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:34:09 +0000, Mike Fleming
<{mike}@tauzero.co.uk> wrote:
>> "Vote for us or we'll nuke Dudley."
>
>I can see where you went wrong there. Just change "or" to "and" and
>you've got a winner.
ISTR Mike Stanton saying the same at the time.
...
|
Re: Lament ...
Mon, 2 Nov 2009 01:36 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
In article <Ec3tMz$zLj7KFwab@molly.mockford>,
nospamnobody@mollymockford.me.uk (Molly Mockford) wrote:
> postponed for seven or eight months
^^^^^^
Did you misspell Aeons? [1]
[1] I lurk everywhere...
--
Paul Cummins - Always ...
|
Re: Responsibility for the health of Usenet (was Re: Questions for Chibal)
Mon, 2 Nov 2009 01:12:00 +0000
At 00:59:00 on Mon, 2 Nov 2009, Paul Cummins
<usethebl@stedphone.invalid> wrote in
<memo.20091102005909.1784A@cix.co.uk>:
>In article <8p4se51jqke7oqv5slrgtobhjcmeh698cp@4ax.com>,
>dg@dickgaughan.co.uk (Dick Gaughan) wrote:
>
>> [1] chastised - insulted, flamed, branded a clueless fuckwit etc
>
>Oi! I rese ...
|
Re: Responsibility for the health of Usenet (was Re: Questions for Chibal)
Mon, 2 Nov 2009 01:10:53 +0000
At 00:38:41 on Mon, 2 Nov 2009, Dick Gaughan <dg@dickgaughan.co.uk>
wrote in <u3ase5lu1206h182qi16qat70lng39fsc5@4ax.com>:
>As a furriner, I find this love affair the rest of England has
>with Dudley to be a bit of a puzzle. I thought people would have
>gone to any lengths to preserve such a charming and popula ...
|
Re: Responsibility for the health of Usenet (was Re: Questions for Chibal)
Mon, 2 Nov 2009 01:08:02 +0000
At 23:58:26 on Sun, 1 Nov 2009, kat <kat.news@ntlworld.com> wrote in
<7l6llsF3cs54rU1@mid.individual.net>:
>When I first came here I felt the regulars - some of the regulars -
>gave me a hard time.
We did. Not you personally, of course - but the Silversurfers in
general, because they needed to make a case ...
|
