Gardeners are gardeners
 

or are they?

If they dare to appear on this hallowed newsgroup via gardenbanter, they are
the lowest of the low.

Why?

Mike

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Gardeners are gardeners
 

Mike wrote:
or are they?

If they dare to appear on this hallowed newsgroup via gardenbanter,
they are the lowest of the low.

Why?

They're not the lowest of the low, people just tell them that this isn't a
website, there is no search facility, they are not 'members' here and other
related facts pertaining to this being a newsgroup and not a website.

Also some of them pi$$ people off by trawling back through five years of
posts and posting a reply to one of them, always without the original text
or anything else so that they appear like this:

Princess Diana killed in car crash.

" Yes I believe it was purple"

Gardeners are gardeners
 

"Mike" wrote in message
...
or are they?

If they dare to appear on this hallowed newsgroup via gardenbanter, they
are
the lowest of the low.

Why?

Because they are to stupid to find a newsgroup which has been running for
many years!

Alan


Mike

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Gardeners are gardeners
 

Alan Holmes wrote:
"Mike" wrote in message
...
or are they?

If they dare to appear on this hallowed newsgroup via gardenbanter,
they are
the lowest of the low.

Why?

Because they are to stupid to find a newsgroup which has been running
for many years!

Alan

Have you ever tried to explain to someone face to face what usenet is?
The first question out of their mouth is invariably, "what's the web
address?" and the second (usually within the following minute) is " I've not
got a clue what you are talking about"
Less than 1 in ten people with internet access know what usenet is, even
less actually use it

Gardeners are gardeners
 

"Mike" wrote in message
...
: or are they?
:
: If they dare to appear on this hallowed newsgroup via gardenbanter, they
are
: the lowest of the low.
:
: Why?
:
: Mike
:
No, it's just another type of snobbery or smugness frowning on people using
GardenBanter

Gardeners are gardeners
 

"Mike" wrote in message
...
or are they?

If they dare to appear on this hallowed newsgroup via gardenbanter, they
are
the lowest of the low.

Why?



Got an example ? An example of (out of place) rudeness towards the poster
rather than gardenbanter? Check the multiple replies to 'douglas' for
example, nothing to suggest he is considered 'the lowest of the low'.

--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com

Gardeners are gardeners
 

"Robert" wrote in message
...

"Mike" wrote in message
...
: or are they?
:
: If they dare to appear on this hallowed newsgroup via gardenbanter, they
are
: the lowest of the low.
:
: Why?
:
: Mike
:
No, it's just another type of snobbery or smugness frowning on people
using
GardenBanter



Got it in one. That is how I see it.

But wouldn't it be nice if the 'pointing out', was done in a nicer tone? You
can read the 'aggression' in the responses from the owners, thus making sure
that 'gardeners are 'not' gardeners' especially if they have poked their
head above the parapet via garden banter

Mike

Gardeners are gardeners
 

and why do people post from there when
they can do it so much easier by subcribing (free) to uk.rec.gardening?


I would guess that they don't know, so wouldn't it be nice to address their
lack of knowledge by a 'polite' posting instead of ripping into them?
Mike

Gardeners are gardeners
 

If they dare to appear on this hallowed newsgroup via gardenbanter, they
are
the lowest of the low.

Why?

I originally thought that it was a group run by primary school children
somewhere because of the lack of punctuation. I later worked out that it was
website which apparently strips out the punctuation when it posts - is this
true? Anyway I think that the fact that the posts appear in this way leads
people to subconsciously think that the OP is stupid and/or about 7 years
old. Just my theory anyway :)

--
Hayley
(gardening on well drained, alkaline clay in Somerset)

Gardeners are gardeners
 

H Ryder wrote:
[...]
when it posts - is this true? Anyway I think that the fact that the
posts appear in this way leads people to subconsciously think that
the OP is stupid and/or about 7 years old. Just my theory anyway :)

All the more reason, then, to treat them gently. That's what we do in
real life, after all. I've never quite understood it, but there is
something about Usenet that makes some people a bit snappy -- I don't
exclude myself, by any means, as I've said my share of embarrassing
things in newsgroups. Perhaps it's a combination of anonymity, lack of
body-language and eye-contact, and the need for brevity imposed by
typing rather than speaking.

I think it's great if somebody discovers Usenet by way of portals like
GB, and we should be holding the door open for them. Apart from anything
else, the more people get into newsgroups, the better the chance that
ISPs will keep on providing access: we don't want any more following
AOL's dumb example.

--
Mike.

Gardeners are gardeners
 

"Mike" wrote in message
...

"Robert" wrote in message
...

"Mike" wrote in message
...
: or are they?
:
: If they dare to appear on this hallowed newsgroup via gardenbanter,
they
are
: the lowest of the low.
:
: Why?
:
: Mike
:
No, it's just another type of snobbery or smugness frowning on people
using
GardenBanter



Got it in one. That is how I see it.

But wouldn't it be nice if the 'pointing out', was done in a nicer tone?
You
can read the 'aggression' in the responses from the owners, thus making
sure
that 'gardeners are 'not' gardeners' especially if they have poked their
head above the parapet via garden banter

Mike

There are times Mike when you appear over sensitive, I often wonder reading
a string of posts what exactly people are getting cross about (not just you)
Me, well I see no point in scoring points or arguing with someone I can't
see, am never likely to meet, and is unlikely to change there minds or
opinions about something because of some point I have made, save your energy
to enjoying the garden.

--
Charlie, gardening in Cornwall.
http://www.roselandhouse.co.uk
Holders of National Plant Collection of Clematis viticella (cvs)

Gardeners are gardeners
 

"Alan Holmes" wrote
"Robert"
"Mike" wrote
: or are they?
:
: If they dare to appear on this hallowed newsgroup via gardenbanter, they
are the lowest of the low.
:
: Why?
: Mike
:
No, it's just another type of snobbery or smugness frowning on people
using
GardenBanter

No, it's an attempt to get people to understand that a gardening group has
been running for many years (20+) under the heading of uk.rec.gardening.
What the hell is gardenbanter anyway, and why do people post from there when
they can do it so much easier by subcribing (free) to uk.rec.gardening?
Alan

Gardenbanter is a web site that lists loads of usenets groups.........I suppose
we should be glad that people find us though them :~)

They do tell people its a portal and they list a FAQ about usenet.

Most people don't know about newsgroups and some URGlers try to enhance their
knowledge by pointing out what's what.

Jenny

Gardeners are gardeners
 

"H Ryder" wrote in message
...
If they dare to appear on this hallowed newsgroup via gardenbanter, they
are
the lowest of the low.

Why?

I originally thought that it was a group run by primary school children
somewhere because of the lack of punctuation. I later worked out that it was
website which apparently strips out the punctuation when it posts - is this
true? Anyway I think that the fact that the posts appear in this way leads
people to subconsciously think that the OP is stupid and/or about 7 years
old. Just my theory anyway :)
Hayley
(gardening on well drained, alkaline clay in Somerset)

Probably the younger generation who have grown up with SMS speak :~)

I have friends who send emails with out punctuation, paragraphs or any form of
spelling check :~(

Jenny

Gardeners are gardeners
 

Most people don't know about newsgroups and some URGlers try to enhance
their
knowledge by pointing out what's what.


Quite.

In a very authoritarian and superior way.

My whole point.

Mike

Gardeners are gardeners
 

Mike wrote:
or are they?

If they dare to appear on this hallowed newsgroup via gardenbanter,
they are the lowest of the low.

2nd reply

I don't see why people should be able to profit from advice I or anyone else
gives freely on this newsgroup.
gardenbanter, diybanter and all the other 'banters' are set up for less than
a tenner and rake in profits from advertisers, they are parasitic inthat
they don't put anything in but leech off this group and others....I've
nothing against the people who use GB per se, but I tend not to respond to
their queries.
Another point to note is that people find GB, ask one or two questions then
never return, rarely do you find that GB users 'give back' to the group.

Gardeners are gardeners
 

In article , Mike
writes

Most people don't know about newsgroups and some URGlers try to enhance
their
knowledge by pointing out what's what.


Quite.

In a very authoritarian and superior way.

My whole point.

Mike


For goodness sake - give it a rest - I thought you had gone away and I
very much enjoyed not having to weed out your nasty replies - if you do
it again, you will be plonked.
--
Judith Lea

Gardeners are gardeners
 

"JennyC" wrote after

"H Ryder"wrote in reply to Mike
If they dare to appear on this hallowed newsgroup via gardenbanter,
they
are
the lowest of the low.

Why?

I originally thought that it was a group run by primary school children
somewhere because of the lack of punctuation. I later worked out that it
was
website which apparently strips out the punctuation when it posts - is
this
true? Anyway I think that the fact that the posts appear in this way
leads
people to subconsciously think that the OP is stupid and/or about 7 years
old. Just my theory anyway :)
Hayley
(gardening on well drained, alkaline clay in Somerset)

Probably the younger generation who have grown up with SMS speak :~)

I have friends who send emails with out punctuation, paragraphs or any
form of
spelling check :~(

We have a Canadian friend that sends long letters like that, makes for an
interesting read!!! :-)

--
Regards
Bob
"Never get so busy making a living
that you forget to make a life"

Gardeners are gardeners
 

- if you do
it again, you will be plonked.
--
Judith Lea


Why wait any longer? Actions speak louder than words. I don't expect to see
you respond to any more of my posts. Shut the door quietly as you leave.

Cheerio

Mike

Gardeners are gardeners
 

Judith Lea wrote:
In article , Mike
writes

Most people don't know about newsgroups and some URGlers try to enhance
their
knowledge by pointing out what's what.


Quite.

In a very authoritarian and superior way.

My whole point.

Mike


For goodness sake - give it a rest - I thought you had gone away and I
very much enjoyed not having to weed out your nasty replies - if you do
it again, you will be plonked.
--
The lowest of the low are trolls and the person who started this thread
has been trolling here for years. He most certainly is not a
legitimate member of this group and I cannot imagine why people
continue to answer him. In most cases, I think it's because they have
better manners than he has and treat all who post with courtesy and
seriousness.
If ever a thread was designed to take a swipe at those who try to
explain easier procedures to others, this is it. He starts threads
only to gain attention and he has been sniping in his usual fashion
ever since he returned to troll again. IMO, this would be a much
better place if he removed himself or if people did not encourage him
by answering his inanities seriously. He admits to no knowledge of
gardening and is a constant stirrer of trouble. It has taken no time
at all for his old tricks to re-surface - mainly aimed at Janet B or me
- but he was ignored to start with. Hence the starting of several new
threads in an increasingly sad and desperate need for attention. IOW,
plonk the plonker.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon

Gardeners are gardeners
 

The message
from Chris Bacon contains these words:

I have looked at that site, even subscribed to
see what it's like - seems fine, and there is an "abc fo
newcomers to uk.rec.gardening. Please read before posting
to this group" which gives a link to the Charter, various
FAQs, and gives useful and accurate tips "to help you if
you are not familiar with newsgroups".

That message originates in urg, not gardenbanter. It's been posted
here every week since years before gardenbanter existed, and widely
ignored in both locations.


Janet

Gardeners are gardeners
 

Don't hold back Sacha, how many times have you been told. Say it as it is
for goodness sake. Put your school marm hat on and speak out

Mike

Gardeners are gardeners
 

In article , Mike
writes

- if you do
it again, you will be plonked.
--
Judith Lea


Why wait any longer? Actions speak louder than words. I don't expect to see
you respond to any more of my posts. Shut the door quietly as you leave.

You can be sure of that PLONK

--
Judith Lea

Gardeners are gardeners
 

In article .com,
Sacha writes

He admits to no knowledge of
gardening and is a constant stirrer of trouble. It has taken no time
at all for his old tricks to re-surface - mainly aimed at Janet B or me
- but he was ignored to start with. Hence the starting of several new
threads in an increasingly sad and desperate need for attention. IOW,
plonk the plonker.

Duly plonked - I will not see his posts any more

--
Judith Lea

Gardeners are gardeners
 

Judith Lea wrote:
In article .com,
Sacha writes

He admits to no knowledge of
gardening and is a constant stirrer of trouble. It has taken no time
at all for his old tricks to re-surface - mainly aimed at Janet B or me
- but he was ignored to start with. Hence the starting of several new
threads in an increasingly sad and desperate need for attention. IOW,
plonk the plonker.

Duly plonked - I will not see his posts any more

Shrewd move. His behaviour has him in more killfiles than anyone else
here.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon

Gardeners are gardeners
 

Chris Bacon wrote:
snip
I have looked at that site, even subscribed to
see what it's like - seems fine, and there is an "abc fo
newcomers to uk.rec.gardening. Please read before posting
to this group" which gives a link to the Charter, various
FAQs, and gives useful and accurate tips "to help you if
you are not familiar with newsgroups". I still prefer
posting directly, but - horses for courses.

The abc has nothing to do with Garden Banter. It comes from urg and
has done for ages. Garden Banter merely takes posts to urg and puts
them on their site. Those posters who request that their posts are not
archived may have a copyright issue with Garden Banter. The problem
with Garden Banter is not only the nerve of them in doing that but the
fact that GB msgs. are not always seen on this newsgroup, so the
messages go unanswered and the originals are not seen by some urglers
at all. I'm afraid that, as is all too common, Mike Crowe is being
deliberately misleading, trouble-making and disingenuous in asking this
question. You will now probably see a series of posts from him
excoriating some urglers and/or telling the group of the plants he saw
on his cruise and either 'recommending' them or asking questions about
them! Anything for the limelight.
Urglers - of which he is not one - encourage GB people to post direct
to urg so that their posts are seen by all and not missed by many.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon

Gardeners are gardeners
 

Shrewd move. His behaviour has him in more killfiles than anyone else
here.
--

How do you know? Do you have proof of how many people kill file others?

Gardeners are gardeners
 

sad sad sad sasha :-((

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------

"Sacha" wrote in message
oups.com...

Chris Bacon wrote:
snip
I have looked at that site, even subscribed to
see what it's like - seems fine, and there is an "abc fo
newcomers to uk.rec.gardening. Please read before posting
to this group" which gives a link to the Charter, various
FAQs, and gives useful and accurate tips "to help you if
you are not familiar with newsgroups". I still prefer
posting directly, but - horses for courses.

The abc has nothing to do with Garden Banter. It comes from urg and
has done for ages. Garden Banter merely takes posts to urg and puts
them on their site. Those posters who request that their posts are not
archived may have a copyright issue with Garden Banter. The problem
with Garden Banter is not only the nerve of them in doing that but the
fact that GB msgs. are not always seen on this newsgroup, so the
messages go unanswered and the originals are not seen by some urglers
at all. I'm afraid that, as is all too common, Mike Crowe is being
deliberately misleading, trouble-making and disingenuous in asking this
question. You will now probably see a series of posts from him
excoriating some urglers and/or telling the group of the plants he saw
on his cruise and either 'recommending' them or asking questions about
them! Anything for the limelight.
Urglers - of which he is not one - encourage GB people to post direct
to urg so that their posts are seen by all and not missed by many.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon

Gardeners are gardeners
 

"Phil L" wrote ...

I don't see why people should be able to profit from advice I or anyone
else gives freely on this newsgroup.
gardenbanter, diybanter and all the other 'banters' are set up for less
than a tenner and rake in profits from advertisers, they are parasitic
inthat they don't put anything in but leech off this group and
others....I've nothing against the people who use GB per se, but I tend
not to respond to their queries.
Another point to note is that people find GB, ask one or two questions
then never return, rarely do you find that GB users 'give back' to the
group.

Actually Phil I have been seriously thinking about doing the same.
A couple of recent posts via GB got me thinking that way, still not sure if
they were "wind ups" or not.

--
Regards
Bob
"Never get so busy making a living
that you forget to make a life"

Gardeners are gardeners
 

Janet Baraclough wrote:
snip
Chris Bacon has just alerted me to the fact that despite
gardenbanters promise to conceal posters' email addresses (from their
post headers), in the case of usenet posters it doesn't honour the
promise.
IOW, those here using real email contact addresses are having them
permanently recorded on a commercial website; a valuable commercial
resource to the website and its advertisers.

One way to avoid that is to auto-mark your posts "X-no-archive-yes",
which prevents them appearing at all on gardenbanter. They will appear
on google-groups for seven days only (enabling those who use it as a
usenet access to read and reply).

I had that set up when I had a PC but am unsure as to how to do it with
a Mac. Anyone who knows will be warmly thanked by me if they can
explain it in words of one syllable!
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon

Gardeners are gardeners
 

On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 09:28:06 +0100, Sacha wrote
(in article . com):


Janet Baraclough wrote:
snip

snip

One way to avoid that is to auto-mark your posts "X-no-archive-yes",
which prevents them appearing at all on gardenbanter. They will appear
on google-groups for seven days only (enabling those who use it as a
usenet access to read and reply).

I had that set up when I had a PC but am unsure as to how to do it with
a Mac. Anyone who knows will be warmly thanked by me if they can
explain it in words of one syllable!

It isn't particularly the Mac versus the PC, it is something you need to set
in your newsreader. Since we use different ones I can't help, but I suggest
you have a rummage in the Preferences or look at the various tools in the
menus. Failing that g there is probably a (sssshhh) web forum for your
particular software, or you could ask on comp.sys.mac.apps - they are pretty
helpful there.


--
Sally in Shropshire, UK
bed and breakfast near Ludlow: http://www.stonybrook-ludlow.co.uk
Burne-Jones/William Morris window in Shropshire church:
http://www.whitton-stmarys.org.uk

Gardeners are gardeners
 

Sally Thompson wrote:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 09:28:06 +0100, Sacha wrote
(in article . com):


Janet Baraclough wrote:
snip

snip

One way to avoid that is to auto-mark your posts "X-no-archive-yes",
which prevents them appearing at all on gardenbanter. They will appear
on google-groups for seven days only (enabling those who use it as a
usenet access to read and reply).

I had that set up when I had a PC but am unsure as to how to do it with
a Mac. Anyone who knows will be warmly thanked by me if they can
explain it in words of one syllable!

It isn't particularly the Mac versus the PC, it is something you need to set
in your newsreader. Since we use different ones I can't help, but I suggest
you have a rummage in the Preferences or look at the various tools in the
menus. Failing that g there is probably a (sssshhh) web forum for your
particular software, or you could ask on comp.sys.mac.apps - they are pretty
helpful there.


Thanks, Sally. And I love Tiger, BTW! ;-)
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon

Gardeners are gardeners
 

"Janet Baraclough" wrote after"Bob Hobden" said

Actually Phil I have been seriously thinking about doing the same.
A couple of recent posts via GB got me thinking that way, still not sure
if
they were "wind ups" or not.

I'm pretty sure the one who (after lots of effort iinput by urg)
recently declined to answer your perfectly polite and reasonable
question (twice) was a wind up..there was a lot else in their posts that
made no sense. There appear to be an increasing number of trolls (the
spate of cod "university research" was an example) using gardenbanter as
cover :-(

Chris Bacon has just alerted me to the fact that despite
gardenbanters promise to conceal posters' email addresses (from their
post headers), in the case of usenet posters it doesn't honour the
promise.
IOW, those here using real email contact addresses are having them
permanently recorded on a commercial website; a valuable commercial
resource to the website and its advertisers.

One way to avoid that is to auto-mark your posts "X-no-archive-yes",
which prevents them appearing at all on gardenbanter. They will appear
on google-groups for seven days only (enabling those who use it as a
usenet access to read and reply).

Thanks Janet, not only do they ponce on URG but they ignore their own rules
too where we are concerned.
Anyone know how I "auto" that "X-no-archive-yes" in OE? Can it be in the
sig?

--
Regards
Bob
"Never get so busy making a living
that you forget to make a life"

Gardeners are gardeners
 

Janet Baraclough wrote:
Chris Bacon has just alerted me to the fact that despite
gardenbanters promise to conceal posters' email addresses (from their
post headers), in the case of usenet posters it doesn't honour the
promise.

Could you point me to where it says that? I'd be interested
to see the wording.


IOW, those here using real email contact addresses are having them
permanently recorded on a commercial website; a valuable commercial
resource to the website and its advertisers.

One way to avoid that is to auto-mark your posts "X-no-archive-yes",
which prevents them appearing at all on gardenbanter. They will appear
on google-groups for seven days only (enabling those who use it as a
usenet access to read and reply).

This, to me, is an unfortunate thing to do. Google, and
others, are a massive and useful resource. Setting xna=y
reduces the effectiveness of this resource (although quoted
xna=y messages are still stored, which is most of them).
There are other, less well-known sites that do not take
notice of the xna=y request, as well.

Gardeners are gardeners
 

"Chris Bacon" wrote in message
...

This, to me, is an unfortunate thing to do. Google, and
others, are a massive and useful resource.


Only for those who are in search of arcane information that's
not readily available from any other source. Books or the
internet. I personally find the archive invaluable for tips
and workarounds on obsolete hardware and software, for
instance.

However IME, on most topics around 75% of the replies to any question
posted on Usenet will either be totally irellevant, wrong headed,
or deliberately misleading in any case.

While at a guess around 80% of the information posted on gardening
Newsgroups could probably be found elsewhere. In books or on the
net. And of the information posted, around 50% is largely a matter
of opinion based solely on subjective experience in any case.
This doesn't necessarily make it any the less valid, but its
hardly the most authoratitive source of information on
most topics, for a start.


michael adams

....

Setting xna=y
reduces the effectiveness of this resource (although quoted
xna=y messages are still stored, which is most of them).
There are other, less well-known sites that do not take
notice of the xna=y request, as well.

Gardeners are gardeners
 

Chris Bacon wrote:
Janet Baraclough wrote:
snip

One way to avoid that is to auto-mark your posts "X-no-archive-yes",
which prevents them appearing at all on gardenbanter. They will appear
on google-groups for seven days only (enabling those who use it as a
usenet access to read and reply).

This, to me, is an unfortunate thing to do. Google, and
others, are a massive and useful resource. Setting xna=y
reduces the effectiveness of this resource (although quoted
xna=y messages are still stored, which is most of them).
There are other, less well-known sites that do not take
notice of the xna=y request, as well.

That's certainly a pov but I know others, journalists among them, who
think Google are riding for a massive fall over copyright, potentially.
There is also a problem in that anyone can say anything that libels or
defames another and it is there, forever, possibly to be taken up and
used in future as an authoritative source of information. I have had
to take legal steps over an American nutcase who tried that with me and
one of my family and even on here, someone has defamed me in such a way
that is both untrue and potentially harmful to my husband's business.
I have no idea how it would work or even if it could work, but IMO, it
would be better if newsgroups could maintain their own archives and
have a sort of 'librarian' moderator who would weed out those that are
clearly libelous or defamatory. But as I say, that may be impossible.

Certainly, I object very strongly to Garden Banter taking my answers
here and using them for their own benefit without permission or even a
by your leave.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon

Gardeners are gardeners
 

Certainly, I object very strongly to Garden Banter taking my answers
here and using them for their own benefit without permission or even a
by your leave.
--
Sacha

Why?

What you post here is public and world wide. Why should Gardenbanter be
refused to publish your comments? You do NOT have copyright on anything said
on these newsgroups. If you wish to keep your comments/advice as answers to
that person only, use an email and not a public domain. Whilst I appreciate
that you feel uk.reg.gardening as your own, I have explained before that
your kissy kissy comments and long conversation with your 'friends' could
very well have gone to email

Mike

Gardeners are gardeners
 

michael adams wrote:
"Chris Bacon" wrote in message
...

This, to me, is an unfortunate thing to do. Google, and
others, are a massive and useful resource.


Only for those who are in search of arcane information that's
not readily available from any other source. Books or the
internet. I personally find the archive invaluable for tips
and workarounds on obsolete hardware and software, for
instance.

However IME, on most topics around 75% of the replies to any question
posted on Usenet will either be totally irellevant, wrong headed,
or deliberately misleading in any case.

While at a guess around 80% of the information posted on gardening
Newsgroups could probably be found elsewhere. In books or on the
net. And of the information posted, around 50% is largely a matter
of opinion based solely on subjective experience in any case.
This doesn't necessarily make it any the less valid, but its
hardly the most authoratitive source of information on
most topics, for a start.

I do agree with this, in the main. I use Google but rarely use
newsgroup archives for all the reasons you've cited. One has only to
look at the trolls we've had and still have in here and the seriously
dodgy 'information' some people have handed out, to realise how
potentially damaging archive use could be.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon

Gardeners are gardeners
 

"Sacha" wrote in message
oups.com...
I have no idea how it would work or even if it could work, but IMO, it
would be better if newsgroups could maintain their own archives and
have a sort of 'librarian' moderator who would weed out those that are
clearly libelous or defamatory. But as I say, that may be impossible.


Look at it another way. Once you start moderating, then you potentially
become responsible for whats left, and also for whats been removed or has
not been removed. By leaving it alone, and archiving everything, you dont
have responsibility, since you are just a 'robotic' archiver. I think there
was a very recent court case against google that backed up this POV.

--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com

Gardeners are gardeners
 

michael adams wrote:
"Chris Bacon" wrote...
This [xna=y], to me, is an unfortunate thing to do. Google, and
others, are a massive and useful resource.

Only for those who are in search of arcane information that's
not readily available from any other source. Books or the
internet.

It's several times easier and quicker finding info. from
searching Usenet than looking things up in books, even
if you think you've got the right book (somewhere!).

That's not to say that books aren't useful.

Gardeners are gardeners
 

Sacha wrote:
I'd guess that sooner or later, Google is going to be sued for
promoting the spread of libel or misinformation, or both.

Interesting theory - however, Google took over the Deja news
archive, and has, as far as I'm aware, an archive that goes
back about a quarter of a century, containing many millions
of posts. Many of these posts are from one of the most
litigious countries in the world. I wouldn't your breath!