YASD: Trank the Conjurer

[TromboneHack]

Aarrrggghhh! I was rockin' with this character until I decided to take
a peek in the Orcish Mines. There really wasn't a whole lot to worry me
- I thought - but I was running low on MP so I went to the stairs to
regenerate magic. Lo and behold, a single goblin said hello to me as I
got to the stairs - I went up - the goblin hits me with a dagger of
distortion - OUCH!! So, I think a bit and see that I cannot afford one
more hit from that bastard, so I decide to disintigrate him. I zap the
wand - nothing happens. GRRRR! Goblin hits me, I die. I had only zapped
that wand ONCE to identify it, and it was out of charges already. Awful
luck.

Oh, and I thought that someone might find humor from me finding TWO
weapons of distortion in this (rather) short game. That mace came in
handy a couple times, too.



Dungeon Crawl version 4.0.0 beta 26 character file.


Trank the Conjurer

Race : Naga Res.Fire : + . . See Invis. : +
Class : Conjurer Res.Cold : . . . Warding : .
Worship : Sif Muna Life Prot.: . . . Conserve : .
Level : 10 Res.Poison: + Res.Corr. : .
Exp : 5923 Res.Elec. : . Gourmand : .
Next Level : 9311
Exp Needed : 3388 Sust.Abil.: . Rnd.Telep. : .
Spls.Left : 1 Res.Mut. : . Ctrl.Telep.: .
Gold : 39 Res.Slow : . Levitation : .
Clarity : . Ctrl.Flight: .
HP : -7/66 (69)
MP : 3/22
Str : 8 (10) Weapon : +2,+4 quarterstaff (crush)
Int : 21 Armour : +0 robe (R-magic)
Dex : 12 Shield :
AC : 6 Helmet : +0 jeweled helmet "Ogyrynilu"
Evasion : 12 Cloak : +0 elf cloak
Shield : 0 Gloves :
Boots :
Play time : 02:04:59 Amulet :
Turns : 10632 Ring : ring of protection from fire
Ring : ring of sustenance


You are on level 6.
You worship Sif Muna.
Sif Muna is most pleased with you.
You are hungry.

Inventory:
Hand weapons
a - a +2,+4 quarterstaff of crushing (weapon)
b - a -1,+0 elven dagger
A - a +1,+3 spear of distortion
J - the +9,+6 mace "Iqoduj Doq Xi"
A long handle with a heavy lump on one end.
Damage rating: 8
Accuracy rating: +3
Base attack delay: 140%%
It inflicts no extra harm, but heals its wielder somewhat when he or
she
strikes a living foe.
It protects you from cold.
It protects you from poison.
It makes you much more stealthy.
It lets you levitate.
It lets you teleport.
It makes you angry.
This weapon is better for the strong.
It is a one handed weapon.
It falls into the 'maces and flails' category.
It weighs around 14.0 aum.
Missiles
H - 6 poisoned +0 needles
Armour
l - a +0 elven cloak (worn)
p - a +0 cloak
B - the +0 jeweled helmet "Ogyrynilu" (worn)
A piece of metal headgear.
Armour rating: 1
Evasion modifier: +0
It affects your dexterity (+2).
It weighs around 8.0 aum.
N - a +0 troll hide
V - a +0 robe of magic resistance (worn)
A cloth robe.
Armour rating: 1
Evasion modifier: +0
It increases its wearer's resistance to enchantments.
It weighs around 6.0 aum.
Magical devices
j - a wand of disintegration (0)
t - a wand of digging (9)
y - a wand of frost (12)
K - a wand of digging (8)
R - a wand of magic darts (2)
Comestibles
c - 2 chunks of goblin flesh
i - 2 meat rations
o - 3 pears
r - a slice of pizza
s - 3 chokos
Q - an apple
T - a lychee
Scrolls
e - 2 scrolls of teleportation
g - a scroll of identify
m - a scroll of remove curse
G - a scroll of blinking
I - a scroll of fear
O - 3 scrolls of detect curse
Jewellery
x - a ring of ice
This ring brings its wearer more in contact with the powers of cold
and
ice. He or she gains resistance to cold and can use ice magic more
effectively, but becomes more vulnerable to the effects of fire.
It weighs around 1.0 aum.
z - a ring of protection from fire (right hand)
This ring provides protection from heat and fire.
It weighs around 1.0 aum.
P - a ring of sustenance (left hand)
This ring provides energy to its wearer, so that they need eat less
often.
It weighs around 1.0 aum.
Potions
h - 2 potions of restore abilities
k - 2 potions of healing
v - 3 potions of heal wounds
C - 2 potions of invisibility
L - a potion of speed


You have 60 experience left.

Skills:
+ Level 1 Fighting
- Level 1 Short Blades
- Level 1 Maces & Flails
+ Level 3 Staves
- Level 1 Darts
+ Level 4 Dodging
+ Level 6 Stealth
+ Level 6 Spellcasting
+ Level 9 Conjurations
- Level 1 Fire Magic
- Level 5 Ice Magic
- Level 2 Air Magic
- Level 2 Poison Magic
- Level 1 Evocations


You have one spell level left.
You know the following spells:

Your Spells Type Success
Level
a - Magic Dart Conjuration Excellent 1
b - Throw Frost Ice/Conjuration Great 2
c - Mephitic Cloud Poison/Air/Conjuration Very Good 3
d - Bolt of Cold Ice/Conjuration Good 5
e - Repel Missiles Air/Enchantment Very Good 2
f - Throw Flame Fire/Conjuration Great 2
g - Conjure Flame Fire/Conjuration Great 3
h - Ensorcelled Hibernation Ice/Enchantment Very Good 2


Last Messages

Nothing appears to happen.
The goblin hits you but doesn't do any damage.
Your body is terribly warped!
You die...

#.######.#.##.# #....#
#.#......#.##.# #....#
#.#..)...#..#.########....####
##)#.....?##...#...............
#@.............#.######....###.
##.#......#.[..............<<).
#.######.#....#.##########....
##.## #.#.#.##.#######.......
#...# #...%***@........).#####.
#...######....##.##########....
#.............'.....# #.###
#...######....#.....# #.#
#...# #....#.....# #.#
#...# #....#.....#######.#
###...# #....#.....##......#
......# ######.....##......#
.....## ########......#


Vanquished Creatures
An unseen horror (D:8)
2 trolls (D:10)
A hungry ghost (D:9)
Edmund (D:5)
A wyvern (D:10)
3 phantoms
3 ogres
6 centaurs
2 necrophages
A brown snake (D:10)
3 giant frogs
Sigmund (D:6)
3 orc warriors
4 imps
5 orc priests
5 hounds
2 giant ants
9 orc wizards
A shadow (D:9)
2 scorpions
3 giant iguanas
2 jellies
12 snakes
4 worms
A big kobold zombie (D:8)
A brain worm zombie (D:10)
A giant mite (D:4)
Jessica (D:4)
A giant ant zombie (D:8)
A hound zombie (D:6)
18 giant bats
7 giant cockroaches
A giant gecko (D:3)
17 goblins
11 hobgoblins
16 jackals
6 kobolds
19 orcs
4 quokkas
20 rats
12 giant newts
2 orc zombies
A rat zombie (D:5)
4 small snakes

221 creatures vanquished.

[Rubinstein]

TromboneHack wrote:
> I had only zapped that wand ONCE to identify it, and it was out of
> charges already. Awful luck.

Exactly to prevent such situations I'm probably the only one who "waste"
?oID on my more important wands.

Before you feel too bad, right now I just lost a very nice character,
even somehow related since a weapon of distortion was involved, too. You
might think my char was nothing special, but if you ever tried to play a
GEAE you should know it *was* special. It's the first time I managed to
get the fighting skill up with these weaklings (early fighting with an
GEAE is extremely risky and I don't know how many I've already killed
that way). Even had a nice enchanted, vorpalized quarterstaff, but no, I
needed to buy these glowing quarterstaff from the ancient weaponshop in
Lair:3 (curiosity kills me all the time).

Guess what, this staff was "of distortion" (seems very rare on
quarterstaves, never saw one before) and drove me straight down to the
Abyss - where I died, of course. My speed-ups (levitation and swiftness)
didn't help in the end: at this point he was still too weak...

I'm afraid I'll need another 2 or 3 month (or ~150 trials) to get to
this point. Or in other words: *THIS SUCKS §%@&!?*

I don't have the morgue file anymore, but IIRC he was clvl 12 or so
when it happened.

R.
--
Wanted: $10000 Reward
Schroedingers Cat
Dead and Alive

[TromboneHack]

Have you ever tried to use a weapon of distortion long term? I tried
once, and it actually performed really well as long as I didn't mind
having the occasional monster teleported away or banished - that
distortion was killing things in a hurry.

[Rubinstein]

TromboneHack wrote:
> Have you ever tried to use a weapon of distortion long term? I tried
> once, and it actually performed really well as long as I didn't mind
> having the occasional monster teleported away or banished - that
> distortion was killing things in a hurry.

Yes, but have you ever tried this with a blunt weapon of distortion?
Ok, if you have *lots* of rations in your pack...

R.
--
Wanted: $10000 Reward
Schroedingers Cat
Dead and Alive

[TromboneHack]

LOL

True.

[Rubinstein]

TromboneHack wrote:

[not quoting anything]
> LOL
>
> True.

[OT]
Pleasy note that many readers have configured their newsreader to only
show unread messages. In such a newsreader your last post would
completely drop out of context, except you were laughing about
*something* and agree with *something*. Google groups users sometimes
don't understand this (or just forget about it) since in GG all posts
looking like common forum articles. This of course is also true with
normal newsreaders configured to leave old postings open...

No big deal, but respecting some basic quoting rules probably helps to
prevent stupid flame wars between GG users and the rest and completely
OT postings like my current one here in the future.

Btw, no need to repeat your last posting (*with* quoting now) or answer
to this one (I know what you meant, others probably not). But thanks in
advance for taking care about it in the future.

R.
--
Wanted: $10000 Reward
Schroedingers Cat
Dead and Alive

[TromboneHack]

> TromboneHack wrote:
>
> [not quoting anything]
>
>> LOL
>
>> True.
>
>[OT]
>Pleasy note that many readers have configured their newsreader to only
>show unread messages. In such a newsreader your last post would
>completely drop out of context, except you were laughing about
>*something* and agree with *something*. Google groups users sometimes
>don't understand this (or just forget about it) since in GG all posts
>looking like common forum articles. This of course is also true with
>normal newsreaders configured to leave old postings open...
>
>No big deal, but respecting some basic quoting rules probably helps to
>prevent stupid flame wars between GG users and the rest and completely
>OT postings like my current one here in the future.
>
>Btw, no need to repeat your last posting (*with* quoting now) or answer
>to this one (I know what you meant, others probably not). But thanks in
>advance for taking care about it in the future.
>
>R.
>--
>Wanted: $10000 Reward
> Schroedingers Cat
> Dead and Alive

Okay, a question about that: how do I get those handy triangular
brackets to appear without having to type each one in manually?

[Erik Piper]

TromboneHack wrote:
> > TromboneHack wrote:
> >
> > [not quoting anything]
> >
> >> LOL
> >
> >> True.
> >
> > [note on why it's important to quote context]

> Okay, a question about that: how do I get those handy triangular
> brackets to appear without having to type each one in manually?

That varies from news client to news client. Even Google Groups is just
another news client, albeit one that is (unjustly) maligned from all
sides by old-timers. Not to say that it's perfect, or even on par from
the technical standpoint with most offline newsreaders, just that
without sources of fresh blood such as GG is, the blood would get way
too thick in here. :-)

DISCLAIMER: I use, and love, GG myself. (I connect from two places,
don't really want to puzzle out getting newsgroups from my ISP if they
even have any, and have mostly bad experiences with free news
services.)

All of which brings me, sort of, to the point: if you are, as I
suspect, using GG, then it's perfectly possible to get quoting marks,
just a bit clunky and unnecessarily complicated. Rather than clicking
the "Reply" link that's automatically visible for each post, click the
Show Options link in the grey box that contains a post's From, To, etc.
info. Click the link named "Reply" that that action reveals. (It's the
first among the revealed links.)

e.

[TromboneHack]

Erik Piper wrote:
> TromboneHack wrote:
> > > TromboneHack wrote:
> > >
> > > [not quoting anything]
> > >
> > >> LOL
> > >
> > >> True.
> > >
> > > [note on why it's important to quote context]
>
> > Okay, a question about that: how do I get those handy triangular
> > brackets to appear without having to type each one in manually?
>
> That varies from news client to news client. Even Google Groups is just
> another news client, albeit one that is (unjustly) maligned from all
> sides by old-timers. Not to say that it's perfect, or even on par from
> the technical standpoint with most offline newsreaders, just that
> without sources of fresh blood such as GG is, the blood would get way
> too thick in here. :-)
>
> DISCLAIMER: I use, and love, GG myself. (I connect from two places,
> don't really want to puzzle out getting newsgroups from my ISP if they
> even have any, and have mostly bad experiences with free news
> services.)
>
> All of which brings me, sort of, to the point: if you are, as I
> suspect, using GG, then it's perfectly possible to get quoting marks,
> just a bit clunky and unnecessarily complicated. Rather than clicking
> the "Reply" link that's automatically visible for each post, click the
> Show Options link in the grey box that contains a post's From, To, etc.
> info. Click the link named "Reply" that that action reveals. (It's the
> first among the revealed links.)
>
> e.

Aha!!!!

Thank you!

[Rubinstein]

Erik Piper wrote:
>
> TromboneHack wrote:
>> > TromboneHack wrote:
>> >
>> > [not quoting anything]
>> >
>> >> LOL
>> >
>> >> True.
>> >
>> > [note on why it's important to quote context]
>
>> Okay, a question about that: how do I get those handy triangular
>> brackets to appear without having to type each one in manually?
>
> That varies from news client to news client. Even Google Groups is
> just another news client, albeit one that is (unjustly) maligned from
> all sides by old-timers. Not to say that it's perfect, or even on par
> from the technical standpoint with most offline newsreaders, just that
> without sources of fresh blood such as GG is, the blood would get way
> too thick in here. :-)

Ok, call me one of these "old-timers" if you want. Just wanna let you
know that the really malign part of GG is not so much the technical part
(which it is, but that's secondary). The biggest mistake of GG is that
it lures new users into usenet while providing the illusion that it's
easy like using a common forum with no or very few rules to respect.

The problem are not the people like you (Erik) who already knew about
how to move in usenet: all noobs using GG usually don't have any clue
about basic things like full-quoting, top posting and the like. These
noobs are not stupid, but how could they know about these things? GG is
not pointing them to the proper groups/informations dealing with such
questions.

In the end we're talking about usenet related questions and teaching
(usenet-) noobs in a group about roguelikes, which really isn't meant to
be. A much better idea would be to read at first
http://members.fortunecity.com/nnqweb/
(example only, there are many other sources for new usenet users)

This one provides some basic infos about usenet in general
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet

Also note that r.g.r.m. is one of the more tolerant newsgroups. In many
other groups it's meanwhile quite common to filter all postings which
origin from Google Groups. For some good reasons, I think.

R.
--
Wanted: $10000 Reward
Schroedingers Cat
Dead and Alive

[Solf]

Rubinstein wrote:
> Also note that r.g.r.m. is one of the more tolerant newsgroups. In many
> other groups it's meanwhile quite common to filter all postings which
> origin from Google Groups. For some good reasons, I think.

As you can probably see, I'm posting from Google Groups.

I'm no newbie to Internet and Usenet but I don't even imagine where
would I start looking for Usenet stuff if not for Google Groups. I
don't think my provider maintains news server.

All in all, I think Google Groups is a very good technical solution for
the whole Usenet thingy.


The problem is the whole AOL syndrome that's repeating itself
apparently. You know, when something becomes "easy" for wide
population, closed "elite" communities get flooded.

Now I'm not really sure what you can do about that. Perhaps educating
newcomers on basic netiquete is the best option -- as you did above --
props for that.

But I have to agree with Erik: "just that without sources of fresh
blood such as GG is, the blood would get way too thick in here".


So to sum up this entirely incoherent post :) I think Google Groups is
an excellent technical solution to a real problem. The problem lies
with "closed" communities that possibly get flooded when the technical
barrier is broken. But this again may be for the best -- better to
adapt then to die off?


Oh, and I apologize to OP for the wild offtopic...

[Rubinstein]

Solf wrote:
>
> Rubinstein wrote:
>> Also note that r.g.r.m. is one of the more tolerant newsgroups. In
>> many other groups it's meanwhile quite common to filter all postings
>> which origin from Google Groups. For some good reasons, I think.
>
> As you can probably see, I'm posting from Google Groups.

Nothing wrong with that. I'm not at all against the "idea" of Google
Groups and it's perfectly ok as long as its users are aware of the
current limitations (note GG is still in beta stage). But the latter
unfortunately isn't the case, for most of the GG users at least.

> I'm no newbie to Internet and Usenet but I don't even imagine where
> would I start looking for Usenet stuff if not for Google Groups. I
> don't think my provider maintains news server.

Agreed, that's the main problem and that's where GG drops in filling a
hole. I had the same problem recently after changing my provider and it
seems that more and more of the low-cost resellers are dropping this
service. Personally I didn't want to accept this situation and the
cheesy compromise of using GG instead. At first I was looking for one of
the free newsservers, but meanwhile the situation here has become really
bad. The still existing free servers I found were either plain crap or,
in case of the better ones, not free anymore. And that's where I am now:
paying for a newsserver (10 Euro/year) but I don't regret this. It's a
really good one, very fast and very well maintained: no zombie groups
for instance which usually are the "trademark" for free newsservers
(lets them look really big but 1/3 of the excisting groups are dead).
In other words, surely worth the less than 1 Euro/month (for my new
provider I need to pay ~15 Euro less per *month* with a 6* speed boost
at the same time).

> All in all, I think Google Groups is a very good technical solution
> for the whole Usenet thingy.

I would prefer the term "better than nothing".

> The problem is the whole AOL syndrome that's repeating itself
> apparently. You know, when something becomes "easy" for wide
> population, closed "elite" communities get flooded.

I really don't know where your impression of an "elite" community came
from. I'd bet most of the "old-school" users never felt this way and I
wonder whether you did when you're saying you're no noob to usenet...

> But I have to agree with Erik: "just that without sources of fresh
> blood such as GG is, the blood would get way too thick in here".

More GG noobs and *my* blood will getting thick. :-)

> The problem lies with "closed" communities that possibly get flooded
> when the technical barrier is broken.

There never was such a thing like a "closed" community. Instead there
was (and *still* is) a well sorted source of informations, which always
had somewhat anarchic structures, but also tried to prevent from sinking
in chaos. In the latter I see the actual danger coming from Google
Groups.

A last note: usenet can very well exist without Google Groups but not
vice versa. GG is in no way a provider rather than just a hitchhiker.

R.
--
Wanted: $10000 Reward
Schroedingers Cat
Dead and Alive

[Dave Hartwick]

Rubinstein wrote:
>
> Nothing wrong with that. I'm not at all against the "idea" of Google
> Groups and it's perfectly ok as long as its users are aware of the
> current limitations (note GG is still in beta stage). But the latter
> unfortunately isn't the case, for most of the GG users at least.

What limitations are those? I can read what others write, reply to
them, and start new topics. I wasn't aware that I wanted to do more
than that.

> Agreed, that's the main problem and that's where GG drops in filling a
> hole. I had the same problem recently after changing my provider and it
> seems that more and more of the low-cost resellers are dropping this
> service. Personally I didn't want to accept this situation and the
> cheesy compromise of using GG instead. At first I was looking for one of

Cheesy because it's free? I can't tell what your problem with Google
actually is.

> the free newsservers, but meanwhile the situation here has become really
> bad. The still existing free servers I found were either plain crap or,
> in case of the better ones, not free anymore. And that's where I am now:
> paying for a newsserver (10 Euro/year) but I don't regret this. It's a

I would. GG is free. Thank you, Google Groups.

> really good one, very fast and very well maintained: no zombie groups
> for instance which usually are the "trademark" for free newsservers
> (lets them look really big but 1/3 of the excisting groups are dead).
> In other words, surely worth the less than 1 Euro/month (for my new
> provider I need to pay ~15 Euro less per *month* with a 6* speed boost
> at the same time).

Still failing to see the advantage over GG here. It doesn't sound like
your provider charges you by the minute or anything, so GG's online
only nature shouldn't be a problem.

> > All in all, I think Google Groups is a very good technical solution
> > for the whole Usenet thingy.
>
> I would prefer the term "better than nothing".

And I'd prefer better than the clunky solutions I've seen earlier. It
works, it's free, you don't install anything, it's simple. Don't go
thinking I'm closed-minded on this, though. If you can come up with
some good reasons why I'd want to try something else and it was free,
I'd give it a try. For all I know, my ISP provider does have something.
I just don't see any reason not to go with GG.

> > The problem is the whole AOL syndrome that's repeating itself
> > apparently. You know, when something becomes "easy" for wide
> > population, closed "elite" communities get flooded.
>
> I really don't know where your impression of an "elite" community came
> from. I'd bet most of the "old-school" users never felt this way and I
> wonder whether you did when you're saying you're no noob to usenet...

I'm generally pro-newbie. There comes a point when I've heard what
you've got to say. It's the quality of the newbie that counts. If a
group is overrun with idiot newbies, probably the topic appeals to
idiots.

> > But I have to agree with Erik: "just that without sources of fresh
> > blood such as GG is, the blood would get way too thick in here".
>
> More GG noobs and *my* blood will getting thick. :-)

What's your problem, exactly? The quoting thing? Tough titty, like you
really need to know what "LOL" is in reply to.

Here's my theory on netiquette:

For the most part, it's simple, commonsense rules that help people get
along online. After these are established, less functional rules creep
in. For instance, your objection to the reply "LOL" with no quote. Now,
if LOL actually meant anything interesting or you have to see it in
context to understand it, OK. But it doesn't. All it meant was
"something in the previous post amused me". The idea that every time
somebody says something they have to quote somebody else is a
non-functional rule.

Then there's the pet peeves. This sort of rule isn't functional either,
and it's imposed by whoever is the loudest and stubbornest. For
instance, remember Britto? Nice guy, posted a lot for a while. Some
lurker comes along and criticizes him for using "u" for "you". Britto,
sadly, took offence and abandoned the group. So, to please a useless
lurker we lost somebody who supplied content.

Another example is the "spoiler space" rule in the ADOM group. Every
time you post something spoily, you're supposed to put in all this
white space. Now what sort of idiot would be reading that group if they
didn't want to be spoiled? Worse, people think that they can only refer
to certain parts of the game in stupidly vague ways. "I went to a
spoily place and did a spoily thing and then I..." Wow, that's so
useful I think I just spoiled my pants. It's a completely retarded
situation, where the flow of information is blocked for no good reason.
I don't recall ever reading somebody saying they didn't want to be
spoiled when it comes to ADOM. On the contrary, the general feeling
seems to be that you can never be too spoiled.

> There never was such a thing like a "closed" community. Instead there
> was (and *still* is) a well sorted source of informations, which always
> had somewhat anarchic structures, but also tried to prevent from sinking
> in chaos. In the latter I see the actual danger coming from Google
> Groups.

I don't see the newbies being the problem here. A newbie didn't derail
this topic. I see you being a curmudgeon, though. And where is this
army of newbies who are threatening Usenet? I wish they'd show up.
Things are slow.

> A last note: usenet can very well exist without Google Groups but not
> vice versa. GG is in no way a provider rather than just a hitchhiker.

Provide a free service, get called a parasite. I stopped reading and
posting to Usenet because it was a PITA. It's not anymore. GG provided
a solution and a reason.

[Erik Piper]

Dave Hartwick wrote:

> [some stuff]

Me too!!!!111

;-)

> Then there's the pet peeves. This sort of rule isn't functional either,
> and it's imposed by whoever is the loudest and stubbornest. For
> instance, remember Britto? Nice guy, posted a lot for a while. Some
> lurker comes along and criticizes him for using "u" for "you". Britto,
> sadly, took offence and abandoned the group. So, to please a useless
> lurker we lost somebody who supplied content.

IIRC (too lazy to check), that awful lurker was me, actually. :-[

I think it might have been a snowballing thing.

> Another example is the "spoiler space" rule in the ADOM group. [description of this phenomenon]

chuckle...


> And where is this army of newbies who are threatening Usenet?
> I wish they'd show up. Things are slow.

...explosion of laughter! Not only are those my sentiments exactly, but
you also gave me the best laugh all day... and this was an Order of the
Stick day, so you had some stiff competition.

Cheers,

e.

[Rubinstein]

Dave Hartwick wrote:
>
> Rubinstein wrote:
>>
>> Nothing wrong with that. I'm not at all against the "idea" of Google
>> Groups and it's perfectly ok as long as its users are aware of the
>> current limitations (note GG is still in beta stage). But the latter
>> unfortunately isn't the case, for most of the GG users at least.
>
> What limitations are those? I can read what others write, reply to
> them, and start new topics. I wasn't aware that I wanted to do more
> than that.

There are special hints available for new Google Groups users, to find
in de.newusers.infos for instance. Unfortunately (and strange enough)
apparently in german language only. I tried hard to find an english
version, to no avail. Here's a copy of the german version, maybe you can
make use of a translater *urgs*:

http://www.fh-flensburg.de/wt/usenet/Hinweise_fuer_Google-Poster.txt

Here you'll find all known limitations and pitfalls about Google Groups.
My english isn't good enough (and it's just too much) to translate it
for you, I would need days. Sorry...

R.
--
Wanted: $10000 Reward
Schroedingers Cat
Dead and Alive

[Dave Hartwick]

Rubinstein, what you wrote to Solf is plenty to convince me that from
your point of view, GG is too limited. However, nothing you've said so
far has led me to agree that GG is harmful to Usenet. Me, I don't need
or want any features beyond being able to read and post quickly and
easily. Further, I consider easier access to Usenet for more people a
boon.

[Rubinstein]

Dave Hartwick wrote:
> Rubinstein, what you wrote to Solf is plenty to convince me that from
> your point of view, GG is too limited. However, nothing you've said so
> far has led me to agree that GG is harmful to Usenet.

This very thread is the best example why I still think it is. See, the
least thing I did have in mind with my innocent little reminder was to
start a discussion about Google Groups, newsreaders, technical details
about usenet and what not. One of the main features of usenet which
differs from common forums is its more strictly sorting policy, as in no
discussions about sex in political groups (and vice versa of course).
But look what we are doing right now: instead of continuing this
discussion in another appropriate group, we are talking "as if" this
would be a common forum or even a chat (to my excuse I didn't set a
follow up since I didn't want to start this discussion at all).

That's what I blame Google Groups for, rather than for some minor
technical flaws: GG lures new users into usenet with the illusion and
the familar look of common forums with just the vague flair of somewhat
"higher quality". Without GG it's not *that* easy to get into usenet
without learning some basic things about this media at first. GG should
at least point all new users to the kind of information I gave you with
the link in my recent message (german only) in big letters and in all
languages.

Seeing GG's 80% monopoly (with increasing tendency), I'm afraid we are
driving towards a situation in where newsgroups are not much different
from forums anymore. And now imagine you need to look for some dedicated
informations about financial topics but have to hack your way through
endless debates between crochet and cricket instead. In the end there
will be the question "why still usenet at all?".

See my point now? GG is on the best way mixing up two entirely different
worlds (usenet and forums), both perfectly valid in their own, but just
not fitting well together. Even when it's looking quite harmless for now
and in a group about roguelikes, GG is already leaving it's tracks
everywhere. Try to think further...

And now I'm out of this discussion, before I start feeling guilty.
Honestly, I'm also tired of this stuff, there are some interesting games
to play instead. :-)

Have a nice day.

R.
--
Wanted: $10000 Reward
Schroedingers Cat
Dead and Alive

[Dave Hartwick]

Rubinstein wrote:
> Dave Hartwick wrote:
> > Rubinstein, what you wrote to Solf is plenty to convince me that from
> > your point of view, GG is too limited. However, nothing you've said so
> > far has led me to agree that GG is harmful to Usenet.
>
> This very thread is the best example why I still think it is. See, the
> least thing I did have in mind with my innocent little reminder was to
> start a discussion about Google Groups, newsreaders, technical details
> about usenet and what not. One of the main features of usenet which
> differs from common forums is its more strictly sorting policy, as in no
> discussions about sex in political groups (and vice versa of course).
> But look what we are doing right now: instead of continuing this
> discussion in another appropriate group, we are talking "as if" this
> would be a common forum or even a chat (to my excuse I didn't set a
> follow up since I didn't want to start this discussion at all).

You started it, you contined it. Don't blame GG.

> That's what I blame Google Groups for, rather than for some minor
> technical flaws: GG lures new users into usenet with the illusion and
> the familar look of common forums with just the vague flair of somewhat
> "higher quality". Without GG it's not *that* easy to get into usenet
> without learning some basic things about this media at first. GG should
> at least point all new users to the kind of information I gave you with
> the link in my recent message (german only) in big letters and in all
> languages.

Actually, I'm pretty sure GG had a "Are you new to Usenet" page or
something similar when I signed up. It probably still does. In any
event, GG has plenty of help pages, a Usenet glossary, and a section on
how to avoid getting flamed. Further, I know if I dug I could find
plenty of posts by newsreader users that make them sound like perfect
jackasses. Wait, I lie, I wouldn't have to dig.

Now, that link you had, that was about the disadvantages of GG, yes? Do
you expect Google to make a big deal out of the supposed disadvantages
of its product?

> Seeing GG's 80% monopoly (with increasing tendency), I'm afraid we are
> driving towards a situation in where newsgroups are not much different
> from forums anymore. And now imagine you need to look for some dedicated
> informations about financial topics but have to hack your way through
> endless debates between crochet and cricket instead.

Experience tells me that Usenet threads went off-topic prior to the
existence of GG.

In the end there
> will be the question "why still usenet at all?".

If Usenet is no longer useful, why should anyone use it? At present, I
like it better than the alternatives, so I use it. The day I don't is
the day I won't. I stopped using it for a while, GG brought me back.

> See my point now? GG is on the best way mixing up two entirely different
> worlds (usenet and forums), both perfectly valid in their own, but just
> not fitting well together. Even when it's looking quite harmless for now
> and in a group about roguelikes, GG is already leaving it's tracks
> everywhere. Try to think further...

What I see is you liking one thing but not liking another. That's
swell. Everyone has preferences. But you've not convinced me that I
should share yours.

[Solf]

Rubinstein wrote:
> > All in all, I think Google Groups is a very good technical solution
> > for the whole Usenet thingy.
>
> I would prefer the term "better than nothing".

Similarly to other posters I'd very much like to hear what's wrong with
Google Groups from the technical perspective? (other than the obvious
problem of hidden "quoted reply" button which actually might be a
blessing given "usenet newbie" problem -- as long as you stick with
something upkeeping thread history (such as GG), you are probably
better off with "LOL" replies rather than with fully quoted post and
one-liner at the end).

My only real complaint with Dejanews was that I think it was pretty
slow (maybe it was my internet connection to blame though). GG is
blazing fast for me and it does what I need at a very little cost (no
installation, configuration, etc.). In fact, it does more than I could
do with your standard news reader -- I wouldn't be able to easily
search the whole years of stuff w/o GG. (if someone doesn't remember,
GG bought Dejanews and went from there -- initially GG functionality
was very poor compared to Dejanews (imho), but nowadays it is probably
the other way around)

Well.. come to think about it... I *am* missing one thing -- I'd like
to be able to change size of the font used to display messages :) But
that's not too high price to pay for lazy me ;)

> I really don't know where your impression of an "elite" community came
> from. I'd bet most of the "old-school" users never felt this way and I
> wonder whether you did when you're saying you're no noob to usenet...

"In the good ole times" when I was reading r.g.r.a in Outlook Express
(which was quite a while ago), r.g.r.a was widely regarded (at least
among participants) as one of the "best" Usenet groups around (the
signal to noise rate was reported to be incredibly high compared to
"other" newsgroups; admittedly, I didn't really check it myself). From
the limited overview of r.g.r.* that I have those days, it seems that
nothing much has changed -- people still consider those one of the
"best" groups for signal to noise ratio.

Building community that is so different from "usual" in my eyes
requires something that I would call "a pretty closed elite group".
Well, the entire subject matter (roguelikes) probably filters out
almost everyone who would not be liked by usual r.g.r.* audience -- it
seems that it takes a somewhat special kind of person to recognize the
beauty of roguelikes and care enough to start posting. That's probably
opposite for a certain p-word (you see, I'm not sure what the
netiquette is regarding _that_ word and subject matter here) :)

Oh, and I didn't really mean to offend anyone with "closed elite group"
moniker.. I've probably should've gone for a better choice of words,
but nothing better comes to mind immediatelly.

[Rubinstein]

Solf wrote:
> Rubinstein wrote:
>> > All in all, I think Google Groups is a very good technical solution
>> > for the whole Usenet thingy.
>>
>> I would prefer the term "better than nothing".
>
> Similarly to other posters I'd very much like to hear what's wrong
> with Google Groups from the technical perspective? (other than the
> obvious problem of hidden "quoted reply" button which actually might
> be a blessing given "usenet newbie" problem -- as long as you stick
> with something upkeeping thread history (such as GG), you are probably
> better off with "LOL" replies rather than with fully quoted post and
> one-liner at the end).

Debatable whether the resulting null-quote is a "blessing" compared to
full-quotes. ;-)

Btw, my note at this point was meant as a general reminder, not only
pointed to you (and deliberately at a less disturbing moment), cause
this case occurs in regular intervals. Someone just has to play the
unthankful nitpicker role here. Admittedly, Erik can do this much better
and I won't do it again.

My objections about the technical part (and I mentioned it's secondary
for me, didn't I?) are not meant in the sense of "broken" (perhaps
besides the leading brackets problem, that's why we use the group flag
"-Crawl-" now instead of "[Crawl]") rather than poor design. What I
don't like is the missing flexibility to configure GG to my liking, like
only showing unread messages as an easy example. Also, but honestly a
very personal preference, I like to post and read in pure ASCII on Linux
Console (mainly as a result of weak eyes and a small monitor).

Another thing I find somewhat annoying is the way GG cuts the length of
your lines. Though basically correct, you can't see the final design
immediately while you are writing, but in the preview only. I'm using
vim here as posting editor with a certain script included which does
this for me in the edit view (of course also properly dealing with
nested quotings). Don't know whether you can imagine the difference,
just believe me that once you've got used to it you don't want to miss
it anymore.

> My only real complaint with Dejanews was that I think it was pretty
> slow (maybe it was my internet connection to blame though).

I never complaint about Google's news archives, which to me is one of
the big highlights of Google Groups, though it already was there long
before the posting functionality was introduced. I'm even not sure
whether it's independent from Google Groups or not (you said something
like GG has been grown out of it).

> [...] Well.. come to think about it... I *am* missing one thing -- I'd
> like to be able to change size of the font used to display messages :)
> But that's not too high price to pay for lazy me ;)

Changing font size is no (and not GG's) problem at all. Meanwhile any
recent browser should be able to let you change the current font size,
even with shortcuts (Ctrl+, Ctrl- and Ctrl= are quite common).

For small monitor users like me (15") it's still a difference to read a
message filling up the entire screen, without the limitations of the
browser border. Though you can maximize the width of your view in GG,
you would hide the thread view in this case. But isn't frequent window
sliding somewhat tedious? With my newsreader it's just a simple key
stroke (no mouse involved for anything). I get any view at once and in
"fullscreen".

> Oh, and I didn't really mean to offend anyone with "closed elite
> group" moniker.. I've probably should've gone for a better choice of
> words, but nothing better comes to mind immediatelly.

Got you completely wrong on this, pardon me. :-/

R.
--
Wanted: $10000 Reward
Schroedingers Cat
Dead and Alive

[enurmi]

Hi! I'd like to give my two pennies to this conversation, too, since I
think I'm a beginner on both techniques (GG and newsreaders)

Rubinstein wrote:

> > Similarly to other posters I'd very much like to hear what's wrong
> > with Google Groups from the technical perspective? (other than the
> > obvious problem of hidden "quoted reply" button which actually might
> > be a blessing given "usenet newbie" problem -- as long as you stick
> > with something upkeeping thread history (such as GG), you are probably
> > better off with "LOL" replies rather than with fully quoted post and
> > one-liner at the end).
>
> Debatable whether the resulting null-quote is a "blessing" compared to
> full-quotes. ;-)

Very debatable, in my opinion too. I think what this "elite"
-impression might refer to is that the quality of usenet messages
exceeds all of the forums that I've ever visited, that is to say that
people write here when they have something interesting to say. Although
I must say that I've only been reading a few usenet groups ever. At
least this group is great, I think! Not "elite" but rather "top class"?

> [...]Also, but honestly a
> very personal preference, I like to post and read in pure ASCII on Linux
> Console (mainly as a result of weak eyes and a small monitor).

> For small monitor users like me (15") it's still a difference to read a
> message filling up the entire screen, without the limitations of the
> browser border. Though you can maximize the width of your view in GG,
> you would hide the thread view in this case. But isn't frequent window
> sliding somewhat tedious? With my newsreader it's just a simple key
> stroke (no mouse involved for anything). I get any view at once and in
> "fullscreen".

I have a bit of experience on both, GG and a "real" newsreader, and I
think I could sum up the subjective goods and bads on both. I've been
using PINE before, because that's what I read my email on anyway, so
it's no extra trouble. Actually, I don't know if it qualifies as a
"real" newsreader, but it seems to match the properties of one that you
have described. Lately I've been using GG since I believe our
university has closed its news services (I get only "connection
failed"). Also, I don't have real experience of real newsreaders, since
I have not configured it in any way, since the software is in my
university's server. But this is what I liked in it:

1) You get to see all new messages in a group. That means you actually
see (easily) what's really happening. In GG, for example, I thought
"why is this group so quiet" before noticing that the conversation is
on this (oldish) thread.

2) No Need For Mouse! I loved that! My mouse is old and inaccurate, so
I tend to use as much keyboard as possible. I would believe that most
roguelike players prefer keyboard over mouse, which also has a
flavoring effect in this conversation :)

3) Easy to write a message. That's because it's the same program I use
for email, so the program is designed for reading and writing (and I
have already high experience in writing messages with the program),
whereas a web browser is mainly designed for reading (and watching
pretty pictures).

downsides:

a) Configuring problems: I got a lot of technical problems when using
PINE. I think one was that when I didn't delete old messages and came
weeks later back to read the group, the program was trying to fetch
something that was no longer there. And I got a ton of error messages.
And I think this was purely due to me not knowing how to properly use
the program. Which leads me to think that it might be quite hard for a
not-techincally-oriented or newbie to start really using usenet that
way.

b) difficulty of browsing "what's out there". When I thought about
checking out what other groups are there, I noticed that I had to
subscribe it and somehow "fetch the messages" before I even saw what
the group was all about. And feeling bad about the sheer weight on my
school's server's shoulders. Or I don't know if it was that heavy
actually, but at least it took a LOT of time.

About Google Groups:
the good things:

1) Thread integrity. Easy to follow a conversation (and move back to
what was said before). Although this is complete opposite of the good
property of a newsreader, I think both properties are good for some
things. When my newsreader still worked, I used to read this group
sometimes in pine, sometimes in GG.

2) Archieving and browsing a lot of groups. It's easy to take a peek on
other groups to see what they are all about. Also, I wouldn't have
found this group without GG (was googling for crawl spoilers and got
here).

3) Easy to use. I've not had technical issues with GG, yet.

bad things:

a) difficult to see new messages in a group.

b) having to use that %/&(% mouse.

c) font issues. Even with a proper font pure ASCII is just nicer to
read.

This is not ment to be a final truth about both, this is just an
inexperienced user's hunch on them. And I would love to see that GG
newbie's guide in english! (not asking anyone to translate, though). I
know a little german, but most of it is from choir songs, and knowing
words like "Kreuzestod" or "Evigkeit" is no use in this context :). I
think many issues that people have with GG users would be solved, if a
guide was easily available and people would read it. The latter is
maybe a bit optimistic.

Erkki Nurmi

[Erik Piper]

enurmi wrote:

> This is not ment to be a final truth about both, this is just an
> inexperienced user's hunch on them. And I would love to see that GG
> newbie's guide in english! (not asking anyone to translate, though). I
> know a little german, but most of it is from choir songs, and knowing
> words like "Kreuzestod" or "Evigkeit" is no use in this context :).

Oh, you never know, maybe they're suggesting a Kreuzestod for the
Google management and predicting that Usenet will last for an Ewigkeit,
but GG won't. :-)

e.

[Rubinstein]

Erik Piper wrote:
> enurmi wrote:
>
>> [wants to see german newbie's guide for Gougle Groups in english]
>> [...]
>> I know a little german, but most of it is from choir songs, and
>> knowing words like "Kreuzestod" or "Evigkeit" is no use in this
>> context :).
>
> Oh, you never know, maybe they're suggesting a Kreuzestod for the
> Google management and predicting that Usenet will last for an
> Ewigkeit, but GG won't. :-)

Hahahahahahahahaha :-)
Big mistake, little e.: you've just perfectly qualified yourself for
translating this stuff... *g*

R.
--
Wanted: $10000 Reward
Schroedingers Cat
Dead and Alive

[David Damerell]

Quoting Solf <***@gmail.com>:
>Well.. come to think about it... I *am* missing one thing -- I'd like
>to be able to change size of the font used to display messages :) But
>that's not too high price to pay for lazy me ;)

You are. Use a Web browser that does not permit Web pages to dictate what
font and size they are to be viewed in.
--
David Damerell <***@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Distortion Field!
Today is Second Wednesday, February.

[Darshan Shaligram]

Rubinstein <***@gmail.com> writes:
[Google Groups]
> Nothing wrong with that. I'm not at all against the "idea" of Google
> Groups and it's perfectly ok as long as its users are aware of the
> current limitations

The one thing Google Groups is excellent at is generating long heated
discussions between people who criticise its interface and Google
Groups users who take such criticism personally (WHAT? You're
criticising Google Groups? I use Google Groups, so that must mean you
hate me!). It never fails.

The best policy is to simply ignore all threads that start discussing
Google Groups. Saves you a lot of time and energy. :-)

--
Darshan Shaligram <***@gmail.com> Deus vult

[Rubinstein]

Darshan Shaligram wrote:
> Rubinstein <***@gmail.com> writes:
>> [Google Groups]
>
> The best policy is to simply ignore all threads that start discussing
> Google Groups. Saves you a lot of time and energy. :-)

Thanks for the reminder, I'll keep it under my pillowcase. :-)

R.
--
Wanted: $10000 Reward
Schroedingers Cat
Dead and Alive

[David Damerell]

Quoting Erik Piper <***@sky.cz>:
>Dave Hartwick wrote:
>>Then there's the pet peeves. This sort of rule isn't functional either,
>>and it's imposed by whoever is the loudest and stubbornest. For
>>instance, remember Britto? Nice guy, posted a lot for a while. Some
>>lurker comes along and criticizes him for using "u" for "you". Britto,
>>sadly, took offence and abandoned the group. So, to please a useless
>>lurker we lost somebody who supplied content.
>IIRC (too lazy to check), that awful lurker was me, actually. :-[

You being a well-known lurker, of course.

Actually I think I started it, but so what? If he hadn't had his head up
his own arse he'd just have posted in English and everyone would have been
happy. If he'd been marginally less of a drama queen he could have
continued to post in txt speak, the English speakers could have killfiled
him, and everyone would have been happy.

I also observe that it is precisely the groups that enforce the rules that
remained readable throughout September and today. rgr.nethack is crawling
with netcops; it's also lively, 90% on topic, and often throws up new and
interesting ideas even for people who've been playing the game for over a
decade. At the other end of the scale, look at the sewer that
alt.games.final-fantasy turned into.
--
David Damerell <***@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Distortion Field!
Today is Second Wednesday, February.

[Dave Hartwick]

David Damerell wrote:

> Actually I think I started it, but so what? If he hadn't had his head up
> his own arse he'd just have posted in English and everyone would have been
> happy. If he'd been marginally less of a drama queen he could have
> continued to post in txt speak, the English speakers could have killfiled
> him, and everyone would have been happy.

Yeah, you did start it. Erik then mentioned that he disliked "u" for
"you". You crawled up the poor guy's ass with an unabridged dictionary.
So what? So we lost somebody who actually posted about Crawl because
you couldn't get over an abbreviation or find your killfile button.
You're still slandering and lying about him, too. His posts weren't
gibberish. He just used "u" for "you". In my opinion, you were the
problem, not him, especially because I don't remember you posting
anything other than in that thread and this.

I give you the drama queen point, though. The guy fell apart and
started talking about poetic license. That does not excuse your rude
and counterproductive behavior, in my opinion.

> I also observe that it is precisely the groups that enforce the rules that
> remained readable throughout September and today. rgr.nethack is crawling
> with netcops; it's also lively, 90% on topic, and often throws up new and
> interesting ideas even for people who've been playing the game for over a
> decade. At the other end of the scale, look at the sewer that
> alt.games.final-fantasy turned into.

Gee, ever wonder if that might be because Nethack and Final Fantasy
appeal to different audiences and not because of the presence or lack
of sticks in certain asses? You might like reading bossy posts from
self-appointed police. I don't, so I don't read the Nethack group. To
make a comparison that actually has a chance of validity, the ADOM
group has a wannabe cops, this one doesn't. Guess which one I read more
often. I can provide other examples of groups that get by just fine
without useless, inflexible rules and the useless, inflexible dorks who
carp whenever somebody breaks one.

Sounds to me is you need to find a GrOwN uPs OnLy Final Fantasy message
board. Good luck.

[David Damerell]

Quoting Dave Hartwick <***@yahoo.com>:
>David Damerell wrote:
>>Actually I think I started it, but so what? If he hadn't had his head up
>>his own arse he'd just have posted in English and everyone would have been
>>happy. If he'd been marginally less of a drama queen he could have
>>continued to post in txt speak, the English speakers could have killfiled
>>him, and everyone would have been happy.
>So what? So we lost somebody who actually posted about Crawl because
>you couldn't get over an abbreviation or find your killfile button.

No; we lost him because he was a drama queen. I am not responsible for
other people's actions.

>You're still slandering and lying about him, too. His posts weren't
>gibberish.

I am not aware of where I asserted that they were.

>In my opinion, you were the
>problem, not him, especially because I don't remember you posting
>anything other than in that thread and this.

I am also not responsible for the deficiencies of your memory.

>>I also observe that it is precisely the groups that enforce the rules that
>>remained readable throughout September and today. rgr.nethack is crawling
>>with netcops; it's also lively, 90% on topic, and often throws up new and
>>interesting ideas even for people who've been playing the game for over a
>>decade. At the other end of the scale, look at the sewer that
>>alt.games.final-fantasy turned into.
>Gee, ever wonder if that might be because Nethack and Final Fantasy
>appeal to different audiences and not because of the presence or lack
>of sticks in certain asses?

Could be, if those were not examples of a more general observation.

>You might like reading bossy posts from self-appointed police.

I might. I don't, particularly, unless the snide is particularly well
written, but I do see them as necessary for a useful newsgroup.

>make a comparison that actually has a chance of validity, the ADOM
>group has a wannabe cops, this one doesn't.

You cannot simultaneously contend that I am a netcop and that rgr.misc
doesn't have any netcops.
--
David Damerell <***@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Kill the tomato!
Today is Second Thursday, February.

[David Damerell]

Quoting enurmi <***@yahoo.ca>:
>About Google Groups:
>the good things:
>1) Thread integrity. Easy to follow a conversation (and move back to
>what was said before).

Pine is pretty dismal for this, really. A good newsreader makes it easy to
review previously posted articles without making it hard to distinguish
them from newly posted ones.

>2) Archieving and browsing a lot of groups. It's easy to take a peek on
>other groups to see what they are all about. Also, I wouldn't have
>found this group without GG (was googling for crawl spoilers and got
>here).

Well, hang on; I don't think anyone is disputing that GG is an excellent
Usenet search engine.
--
David Damerell <***@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Distortion Field!
Today is Second Wednesday, February.

[David Damerell]

Quoting Erik Piper <***@sky.cz>:
>sides by old-timers. Not to say that it's perfect, or even on par from
>the technical standpoint with most offline newsreaders, just that
>without sources of fresh blood such as GG is, the blood would get way
>too thick in here. :-)

Fresh blood nearly killed Usenet once during the Last September.
--
David Damerell <***@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Kill the tomato!
Today is Second Tuesday, February.

[Erik Piper]

David Damerell wrote:
> Quoting Erik Piper <***@sky.cz>:
> >sides by old-timers. Not to say that it's perfect, or even on par from
> >the technical standpoint with most offline newsreaders, just that
> >without sources of fresh blood such as GG is, the blood would get way
> >too thick in here. :-)
>
> Fresh blood nearly killed Usenet once during the Last September.

Quippy. But is it a useful statement about GG and the present-day
Usenet?

Judging from historical accounts of the Last September, the influx at
that time was much stronger than that caused by Google Groups, at least
if r.g.r.* is any yardstick of the flow (trickle) of new blood that GG
brings.

Also, Usenet seems to have absorbed the new blood from "September" fine
and well, and I'd bet a very good percentage of the people reading this
are post-"September". Granted, I'm biased, as I'm post-"September"
myself.

e.

[David Damerell]

Quoting Erik Piper <***@sky.cz>:
>David Damerell wrote:
>>Quoting Erik Piper <***@sky.cz>:
>>>sides by old-timers. Not to say that it's perfect, or even on par from
>>>the technical standpoint with most offline newsreaders, just that
>>>without sources of fresh blood such as GG is, the blood would get way
>>>too thick in here. :-)
>>Fresh blood nearly killed Usenet once during the Last September.
>Quippy. But is it a useful statement about GG and the present-day
>Usenet?

Well, my perception - I started reading Usenet on about the 40th September
- is that Usenet has been improving for the past few years now that
September is over, and that GG is retarding that improvement; in
particular, that the rate of improvement has dropped as GG's posting
interface has got "easier".
--
David Damerell <***@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Kill the tomato!
Today is Second Tuesday, February.

[Erik Piper]

David Damerell wrote:
> Quoting Erik Piper <***@sky.cz>:
> >David Damerell wrote:
> >>Quoting Erik Piper <***@sky.cz>:
> >>>sides by old-timers. Not to say that it's perfect, or even on par from
> >>>the technical standpoint with most offline newsreaders, just that
> >>>without sources of fresh blood such as GG is, the blood would get way
> >>>too thick in here. :-)
> >>Fresh blood nearly killed Usenet once during the Last September.
> >Quippy. But is it a useful statement about GG and the present-day
> >Usenet?
>
> Well, my perception - I started reading Usenet on about the 40th September
> - is that Usenet has been improving for the past few years now that
> September is over, and that GG is retarding that improvement; in
> particular, that the rate of improvement has dropped as GG's posting
> interface has got "easier".

My perception as an on-and-off user of GG since discovering ADOM
somewhat after the turn of the layman's millenium is that GG hasn't
made the path to posting as such any more "buttered" over the years, if
that's what you mean. If you're referring to the braindead decision to
hide away the link for netiquette-compatible replying during the Great
Redesign, I'll be happy to stand alongside condemn the very greatest
GG-haters and condemn that, though, or more relevantly to concur that
this misfeature singlehandedly does very bad things for Usenet culture.

e.

[David Damerell]

Quoting Erik Piper <***@sky.cz>:
>that's what you mean. If you're referring to the braindead decision to
>hide away the link for netiquette-compatible replying during the Great
>Redesign, I'll be happy to stand alongside condemn the very greatest
>GG-haters and condemn that, though, or more relevantly to concur that
>this misfeature singlehandedly does very bad things for Usenet culture.

I think it is worse than that. Specifically, I don't think this decision
is the result of incompetence; I think it is the result of malice. The Web
forum style followups help to contribute to the perception of Usenet as a
Web forum based on Google's site which happens to have some external
posters; note also that Google's interface and documentation generally
skims over the distinction between Usenet newsgroups and the locally
hosted groups which _are_ Web forums based on Google's site.

This is great for Google; most people understand Web forums (and have
never seen anything else) and presenting Usenet as a Web forum makes it
more attractive, getting them more eyeballs pointed at advertising. It is,
however, very bad for Usenet - not least because the world is _full_ of
stinking Web forums already and it is valuable to have something which is
distinctly different.
--
David Damerell <***@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Distortion Field!
Today is Second Wednesday, February.

[Erik Piper]

TromboneHack wrote:

[a YASD for Trank the Conjurer]

I bet you didn't suspect that YASD actually stands for Yet Another...
Stimulating... Discussion!

e.