Re: -- a cure for spam (fwd)

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 01:19:01 -0800, Michael Press <rubrum@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

In article <6hmvr35ag50o3l6g9uuk9slu6gbu9205ru@xxxxxxx>,
quasi <quasi@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 23 Feb 2008 10:02:17 +0200, Phil Carmody
<thefatphil_demunged@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

quasi <quasi@xxxxxxxx> writes:
On 23 Feb 2008 02:53:41 +0200, Phil Carmody
<thefatphil_demunged@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I have nothing at all to do with this site except for complete
agreement:

http://www.improve-usenet.org/index.html


Telling Google Groups users to use a different newsreader is missing a
key point -- they must also find another news _provider_.

I'm not missing that point at all. Can you show me any
evidence in what I've posted to support your claim that
I don't know that google groups is a news provider and
that telling people to not use google groups is not
telling them to find another news provider.

I have no idea what you know or don't know.

My reply to your post was not necessarily directed at you -- in fact,
I was mainly responding to the content of the link which you provided:

http://www.improve-usenet.org/index.html

My main point is that the constant criticism of Google Groups users is
both unfair and pointless (not to mention repetitive, and almost spam
in its own right) unless a viable alternative for those users is also
suggested.

That is your opinion.

Of course.

My opinion is that I am entirely
at liberty, without let or hindrance, and without
burdening my conscience, to blackguard google groups
for changing quoted text, for allowing original posters
to remove their posts from the archive, and for
pretending to _be_ sci.math.

Sure, you can do that, but it's not very newbie-friendly.

The trend is clear. More and more users will discover sci.math for the
first time via Google Groups. You can filter them all out if you want
-- that's up to you.

But punishing these new users for using Google Groups is surely
unfair. For one thing, how are they supposed to know that using Google
Groups is somehow a bad option? Moreover, what alternative is being
suggested to them? To my view, it's not right to criticize Google
Groups users for their choice of interface without simultaneously
showing the way to an easy, viable, superior alternative.

quasi
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: -- a cure for spam (fwd)
    ... quasi writes: ... Telling Google Groups users to use a different newsreader is missing a ... both unfair and pointless (not to mention repetitive, ... You wrote "punishing these new users for using Google Groups." ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: -- a cure for spam (fwd)
    ... quasi wrote: ... Telling Google Groups users to use a different newsreader is missing a ... both unfair and pointless (not to mention repetitive, ... You wrote "punishing these new users for using Google Groups." ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: -- a cure for spam (fwd)
    ... quasi wrote: ... Telling Google Groups users to use a different newsreader is missing a ... My main point is that the constant criticism of Google Groups users is ... first time via Google Groups. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: -- a cure for spam (fwd)
    ... quasi wrote: ... Telling Google Groups users to use a different newsreader is missing a ... both unfair and pointless (not to mention repetitive, ... You wrote "punishing these new users for using Google Groups." ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: -- a cure for spam (fwd)
    ... quasi wrote: ... Telling Google Groups users to use a different newsreader is missing a ... My main point is that the constant criticism of Google Groups users is ...
    (sci.math)
Quantcast