OT: News.Individual.NET not free of charge anymore

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 19:31:05 -0500, the inscrutable Tom Watson
<[email protected]> spake:

>On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 14:56:51 -0500, "Lee Michaels"
><leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>Dear users of News.Individual.NET,
>
>
><snip of sad story>
>
>
>I've used them for a few years and found them to be excellent.
>
>
>I will not pay them not a bit.
>
>I will not pay them I will quit.
--snip--
>Burma Shave


Uh, Tawm, you've got your Dr. Seuss and Burma Shave mixed up.
Dem Burma signs woulda beed:


I


Will


Not


Pay


Them,


I


Quit Individual.net


Burma Shave



----------------------------------
VIRTUE...is its own punishment
http://www.diversify.com Website Applications
==================================================

Interesting business plan. Charge money for something that Google
offers for free.

Dave Hinz wrote:
> On 15 Feb 2005 12:05:17 -0800, A.M. Wood
<[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Interesting business plan. Charge money for something that Google
> > offers for free.
>
> Yeah, that's right, they're exactly the same thing (rolls eyes).
>
> Enjoy google. You don't know what you're missing, or the history
> of the situation, but if it makes you feel better to bash them,
> by all means do carry on.


Just how many people will opt for the pay service, not once but on a
sustained basis, when a reasonable substitute, which we can expect will
improve with advances in technology, is available for free. My own
experience is that it is difficult to compete with free. Especially
when the provider is generating revenue through advertising. Keep in
mind, this is a business for Google. They are providing this service
as part of their businesss plan and they have every reason to keep it
going. Additionally, they have the cash flow, access to technology and
the ability to raise the capital they need to do it.

Sure, a few will pay, but most will not. Keep in mind that a good
chunk of the the value in these kinds of services is the size of the
network. As the size of the fee based network declines, so too does
its value.

Carrying this to its logical progression, and one that we have seen
very frequently in recent history, as time marches on, the "free"
service offers both a superior product and a lower cost.

As I said before. Opting to charge users money is terrible business
model in this environment. How great the service was is really not the
issue because people don't like to pay for what they had.

Dave,

I am not saying that Google is the end all be all in newsreaders and
make not attempt to assert they are providing everyone with the service
they desire.

I am saying that Google has developed a working business model that
allows them to offer this and other services to users for free, and
believe that in time they will find a way to incorporate the additional
features that will meet the needs of users such as yourself. Sure,
today browser access differs greatly from newsreader access, but you
can expect those differences to become less distinctive as have
differences in so many other applications. Yes, there are ads, but as
it stands now the sponsored links are not a distraction and certainly
nothing like the graphics providers like yahoo, msn and aol throw in
your face all the time.

As a result, I think that the pay services are not going to be able to
survive.

Dave Hinz wrote:
> On 15 Feb 2005 12:05:17 -0800, A.M. Wood
<[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Interesting business plan. Charge money for something that Google
> > offers for free.
>
> Yeah, that's right, they're exactly the same thing (rolls eyes).
>
> Enjoy google. You don't know what you're missing, or the history
> of the situation, but if it makes you feel better to bash them,
> by all means do carry on.

Google does not do any binaries, which is very annoying.

Bert

"So the number of people using a news server defines its value? Funny,
I
thought it was the completeness of its feeds. Which has nothing to do
with users. "

I said a good chunk of its value, not all. Keep in mind that
completeness of feeds is only relevant if there is something to send.
(The network to which I was referring.) I doubt anyone would give a
hoot how completely they received nothing :)

My point however is not whether or not the newsreader has value today.
My point is that technology is changing. Other alternatives are
becomming available. Those alternatives are free to users. As time
passes, as we have seen with every other new technology, new products
will be developed that are compatible with the new technology and
incompatible with the old technology, rendering the older technology
obsoltete.

As I originally stated, a business plan that relies on charging money
to use the old technology in the face of these circumstances is
terrible. The business cannot be expected to last.

J wrote:

>
> You are right.
> Online grocery shopping will completely replace buying food in
person.

Online grocery shopping isn't free


> Ebooks will replace the printed word.

Ebooks aren't free. (Stil printed words, just not on paper)

> Planing machines will replace hand planes.

Planing machines aren't free

> Segways will replace taking the bus.

Segways aren't free

> Mass produced beer will satisfy the masses.

:)
>
> Maybe it is just me, but I think nntp has some life left. The
alternative
> technologies do not measure up yet. Someday it will die, but that
time is in
> the future.
>

Interesting examples, but unlike the alternatives I was discussing,
they aren't free.

> -j

Dave, feel free to pay these folks all you want. I'm sure what they
offer is better today. That however isn't anywhere related to my
comment. My comment is that charging for products that are widely
available for free is a crappy business plan.

"Yeah, the death of Usenet has been predicted for about 15 years now.
It'll die right after Apple, BSD, and dozens of other things."

I never predicted its death. I only predicted that it would change and
the model would involve a service that is free to users. Thus the
people who decided to charge the users didn't have a good business
plan.

In article <[email protected]>,
A.M. Wood <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Interesting business plan. Charge money for something that Google
>offers for free.
>

Yup. there are only about *EIGHTY* (!!) other _established_ companies
offering NNTP server services. Most of them 'for pay'. And making
significant profits at it. Most of them charge an order of magnitude
_more_ than individual.net proposes to charge.


Your ignorance of product offerings, and the *actual* marketplace is
showing.

Google is a *terrible* alternative to what "real" news-reader software,
talking to an NNTP server, provides.

Of course, If Google is all you've ever used, you simply "don't know any
better". However, there is an old Persian proverb about, among other
things, "those who don't know what they don't know".

In article <[email protected]>,
Paul Kierstead <[email protected]> wrote:
>A.M. Wood wrote:
>> Dave, feel free to pay these folks all you want. I'm sure what they
>> offer is better today. That however isn't anywhere related to my
>> comment. My comment is that charging for products that are widely
>> available for free is a crappy business plan.
>
>Where is usenet offered for free outside of n.i.n? Web based services
>are many many miles from usenet with a news reader. Perhaps, someday,
>they might get close or even exceed but I think that is quite some
>distance off.

Do a google search for "USENET news server free" <grin>

I've never really gone searching, but I know 'Tera news' offers
free NNTP access. It's medium yucky, compared to their 'pay' service,
but it *is* there.

They're *NOT* the only one.

<grin>

>Outside of usenet, there are web forums I regularly peruse, but they do
>not have the variety and breadth of people usenet has. If they did, they
>would no longer work terribly well as a web forum.
>
>Outside of all that, I very much doubt it is a "business plan"; they are
>just trying to break even. Not everyone is trying to get rich.
>
>PK

In article <[email protected]>,
Bert <[email protected]> wrote:

> Google does not do any binaries, which is very annoying.

There's a LOT that Gooogle doesn't do.

Which is why I'm happy to pay for a decent news feed.

djb

--
"The thing about saying the wrong words is that A, I don't notice it, and B,
sometimes orange water gibbon bucket and plastic." -- Mr. Burrows

In article <[email protected]>, Tom Watson
<[email protected]> wrote:

> I will not pay them not a bit.

And if everyone who used them for free decides not to pay them 10 Euros
a year they'll still be ahead of the game.

I've never used them but wish them well.

djb

--
"Modern technology has enabled us to communicate and organize with speed and
efficiency never before possible. People have gotten less competent to
compensate for this." - CW

In article <[email protected]>, Lee Michaels
<leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote:

> Dear users of News.Individual.NET,
>
> effective from April 1th, 2005, use of News.Individual.NET will
> not be free of charge anymore. The news service will continue as
> a fee-based service.

Teranews continues to offer a free service, with limited bandwidth per
day (but it resets every day if you do trip the threshold). If you
don't do binaries, you won't have to worry about the limit.

http://www.teranews.com/

Kevin

On 15 Feb 2005 12:05:17 -0800, A.M. Wood <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Interesting business plan. Charge money for something that Google
> offers for free.

Yeah, that's right, they're exactly the same thing (rolls eyes).

Enjoy google. You don't know what you're missing, or the history
of the situation, but if it makes you feel better to bash them,
by all means do carry on.

On 15 Feb 2005 12:40:00 -0800, A.M. Wood <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Dave Hinz wrote:
>> On 15 Feb 2005 12:05:17 -0800, A.M. Wood
><[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > Interesting business plan. Charge money for something that Google
>> > offers for free.
>>
>> Yeah, that's right, they're exactly the same thing (rolls eyes).
>>
>> Enjoy google. You don't know what you're missing, or the history
>> of the situation, but if it makes you feel better to bash them,
>> by all means do carry on.
>
>
> Just how many people will opt for the pay service, not once but on a
> sustained basis, when a reasonable substitute, which we can expect will
> improve with advances in technology, is available for free.

google doesn't come close to meeting my needs for a reliable
nntp server, with aggressive antispam activities, and which I can
interface to with my choice of tools. If you like reading usenet
from a web browser, google is for you.

> My own
> experience is that it is difficult to compete with free.

That's fine. They've been giving it away for many many years, which
has always surprised me.

> Especially
> when the provider is generating revenue through advertising. Keep in
> mind, this is a business for Google. They are providing this service
> as part of their businesss plan and they have every reason to keep it
> going.

Yes, I'm very aware of how google makes their money. Their free service
doesn't provide what I look for in a newsfeed.

> Additionally, they have the cash flow, access to technology and
> the ability to raise the capital they need to do it.

Yes, and news.individual.net also has a means to get the cash flow
they need. Nice of the German taxpayers to pay for my usenet feed
for all these years, now it's my turn to pay for the service that
I appreciate.

> Sure, a few will pay, but most will not. Keep in mind that a good
> chunk of the the value in these kinds of services is the size of the
> network. As the size of the fee based network declines, so too does
> its value.

To you, perhaps. We use usenet servers in different ways, obviously.

> Carrying this to its logical progression, and one that we have seen
> very frequently in recent history, as time marches on, the "free"
> service offers both a superior product and a lower cost.

In this case, only half of those are true, for the features I care
about. For me, a web interface detracts from it's value, and the
fact that google doesn't honor the cancelbot's antispam control
messages is, to me, another reason to not use google.

> As I said before. Opting to charge users money is terrible business
> model in this environment.

Luckily, they're in charge, and you're not. If you were, I'd have
to use an inferior tool that meets _your_ needs, not mine.

> How great the service was is really not the
> issue because people don't like to pay for what they had.

You're obviously not the target market, are you. Really - enjoy
google. Some things are worth paying for, and for me, a full-featured
robust stable fast newsserver, at a cost of $1.25 per month, is worth it.
Hell, I spend several times that a _day_ in gasoline getting to work,
or coffee. Sense of perspective and all that.

Dave Hinz

On 15 Feb 2005 13:21:38 -0800, A.M. Wood <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave,
>
> I am not saying that Google is the end all be all in newsreaders and
> make not attempt to assert they are providing everyone with the service
> they desire.

OK, good, because I'm also not saying that. A newsserver is a lot
more than the GUI of reading usenet via the web.

> I am saying that Google has developed a working business model that
> allows them to offer this and other services to users for free, and
> believe that in time they will find a way to incorporate the additional
> features that will meet the needs of users such as yourself.

Right. Just like commercial over the air TV is free, and you get
to watch commercials. If you want to pay for HBO, you pay but
you don't have commercials. Or broadcast radio vs. satellite radio.
And so on. Different solutions.

> Sure,
> today browser access differs greatly from newsreader access, but you
> can expect those differences to become less distinctive as have
> differences in so many other applications.

Yes, but you're still stuck with google's presentation layer,
and you have to (as far as I know) use their web interface if you
want to use their newsserver. Doesn't fit my needs.

> Yes, there are ads, but as
> it stands now the sponsored links are not a distraction and certainly
> nothing like the graphics providers like yahoo, msn and aol throw in
> your face all the time.

Wouldn't know, I don't use browser-based newsreading.

> As a result, I think that the pay services are not going to be able to
> survive.

OK. I can't disagree that you think that. There are enough people
who value features that you're not aware of, or don't care about,
that I think they'll do just fine, thankyouverymuch.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> > Interesting business plan. Charge money for something that Google
> > offers for free.
>
> Yeah, that's right, they're exactly the same thing (rolls eyes).
>
> Enjoy google. You don't know what you're missing, or the history
> of the situation, but if it makes you feel better to bash them,
> by all means do carry on.
>
Damm it Dave, you've got to quit posting things I agree with :-).

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> > Sure, a few will pay, but most will not. Keep in mind that a good
> > chunk of the the value in these kinds of services is the size of the
> > network. As the size of the fee based network declines, so too does
> > its value.
>
I didn't get the original of this, so I'm using Dave's response quote.
He didn't say the above, <[email protected]> did.

So the number of people using a news server defines its value? Funny, I
thought it was the completeness of its feeds. Which has nothing to do
with users.

And despite the fact of being retired and of limited income, I'll pay
n.i.n twice what they're asking rather than use Google. In fact, I'll
pay them rather than use my current ISPs news server, which isn't all
that bad, just to repay them for having a free service all the times my
previous ISPs had lousy (or no) news servers.

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> > As a result, I think that the pay services are not going to be able to
> > survive.
>
> OK. I can't disagree that you think that. There are enough people
> who value features that you're not aware of, or don't care about,
> that I think they'll do just fine, thankyouverymuch.
>
>
And there are still free news servers out there. I also use
news.readfreenews.net although I understand they're not accepting new
users at present.

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

On 15 Feb 2005 15:02:21 -0800, Bert <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Hinz wrote:
>> On 15 Feb 2005 12:05:17 -0800, A.M. Wood
><[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > Interesting business plan. Charge money for something that Google
>> > offers for free.
>>
>> Yeah, that's right, they're exactly the same thing (rolls eyes).
>>
>> Enjoy google. You don't know what you're missing, or the history
>> of the situation, but if it makes you feel better to bash them,
>> by all means do carry on.
>
> Google does not do any binaries, which is very annoying.

Well, either does news.individual.net. If I cared about binaries,
I'd look at getting a supernews account, I suppose.

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 17:38:40 -0800, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
>> > Interesting business plan. Charge money for something that Google
>> > offers for free.
>>
>> Yeah, that's right, they're exactly the same thing (rolls eyes).
>>
>> Enjoy google. You don't know what you're missing, or the history
>> of the situation, but if it makes you feel better to bash them,
>> by all means do carry on.
>>
> Damm it Dave, you've got to quit posting things I agree with :-).

Dammit. OK, just for a reality check, I just ran down a list with
the Californai Pinko Commie that sits through my cubicle wall, and
we still profoundly disagree on anything philosophical. So, it's
not me baby, it's you...

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 17:44:23 -0800, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> And despite the fact of being retired and of limited income, I'll pay
> n.i.n twice what they're asking rather than use Google. In fact, I'll
> pay them rather than use my current ISPs news server, which isn't all
> that bad, just to repay them for having a free service all the times my
> previous ISPs had lousy (or no) news servers.

They've been giving away news service since 1989. I figure that's worth
some extra consideration, even if the service _wasn't_ as good as it is.

On 15 Feb 2005 20:24:46 -0800, A.M. Wood <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> My point however is not whether or not the newsreader has value today.
> My point is that technology is changing. Other alternatives are
> becomming available. Those alternatives are free to users.

And those alternatives don't meet this user's needs.

> As time
> passes, as we have seen with every other new technology, new products
> will be developed that are compatible with the new technology and
> incompatible with the old technology, rendering the older technology
> obsoltete.

Yeah, the death of Usenet has been predicted for about 15 years now.
It'll die right after Apple, BSD, and dozens of other things.

> As I originally stated, a business plan that relies on charging money
> to use the old technology in the face of these circumstances is
> terrible. The business cannot be expected to last.

In your opinion. Your preferred cheapo solution doesn't perform
several of the functions that this pennies-a-day solution does. To
me, the decision is trivially simple.

How's the killfile support in google? Can I score articles that
I've participated in higher, so I don't miss an ongoing conversation
that I'm in? If I want to not be bothered with, say, any post
crossposted to 3 or more groups, can I do that with google? Will
my posts go out within seconds? Will the incoming newsfeed be
reflected also within seconds?

Google doesn't do many of the things that news.individual.net does,
which is why I'll _gladly_ pay them what they're asking. The DSL
that this machine is on also comes with a ISP-based newsfeed, which
would be free, but while it lets me use whatever tool I want (unlike
google), the feed is slow, misses posts, doesn't honor antispam
cancelbots, and I won't use it, even for free. Google is that much
worse than my other free option. I'll pay the 15 bucks.

Dave Hinz

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 09:44:50 -0500, Silvan <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Balderstone wrote:
>
>> And if everyone who used them for free decides not to pay them 10 Euros
>> a year they'll still be ahead of the game.
>
> I always thought it was a bit odd that the German taxpayers were footing the
> bill for me to have a free news server.

Well, the German government confiscated my great-great-grandfather's land
(a Dane) back in the 1860's, so I don't feel too bad about it.

> OTOH, I have a crappy but paid for news server from my ISP, so I guess I'm
> back to that. I'm too much of a cheap bastard to pay $13 a year for
> something I can get for free, and I don't see enough difference between
> these two (back on my ISP's server now) to make it worth considering the
> PITA factor of sending money off to Germany anyway.

Well, it _is_ a paypal-like thing, but OK. I think we just found
something we disagree on!

Dave

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:01:42 -0600, WD <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 16 Feb 2005 19:05:09 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Well, the German government confiscated my great-great-grandfather's land
>>(a Dane) back in the 1860's, so I don't feel too bad about it.
>
> How about taking the Indians' land here?

Happened before my ancestors arrived, so... I think I can be consistant
and also not feel personal guilt about that.

On 16 Feb 2005 12:54:44 -0800, A.M. Wood <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> J wrote:

>> Maybe it is just me, but I think nntp has some life left. The
> alternative
>> technologies do not measure up yet. Someday it will die, but that
> time is in
>> the future.
>>
>
> Interesting examples, but unlike the alternatives I was discussing,
> they aren't free.

I notice you seem to have ignored _my_ examples of broadcast radio
vs. satellite radio and so on?

On 16 Feb 2005 13:06:05 -0800, A.M. Wood <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave, feel free to pay these folks all you want. I'm sure what they
> offer is better today.

Gosh, thanks ever so much for your permission. I feel so much
better.

> That however isn't anywhere related to my
> comment. My comment is that charging for products that are widely
> available for free is a crappy business plan.

It's not the same service. It's not even close. I outlined
several differences, which you continue to ignore. If they are
things that aren't important to you, _that's fine_, really, it is,
but just because you don't value the differences doesn't mean
those differences don't exist nor does it mean they don't have
real value. You just don't "get it", that's all.

> "Yeah, the death of Usenet has been predicted for about 15 years now.
> It'll die right after Apple, BSD, and dozens of other things."

> I never predicted its death. I only predicted that it would change and
> the model would involve a service that is free to users. Thus the
> people who decided to charge the users didn't have a good business
> plan.

There has been a free web-based usenet interface since before
google existed - dejanews.com. There are still paid NNTP servers
out there. Evidence would seem to indicate that the people
running and subscribing to those servers know something that
you don't. Several of us have tried to clue you in to them,
and you continue not to understand. Sometimes the free option
is the best, sometimes it's just a partial solution. Since you
only understand the parts of Usenet that google provides, it's
a perfect fit _for you_.

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 21:06:02 -0500, Silvan <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Hinz wrote:
>
>> Well, it _is_ a paypal-like thing, but OK. I think we just found
>> something we disagree on!

> Especially not with $5,000+ (maybe ++++; I'm still waiting to see how bad
> the damage is going to wind up) in medical bills looming man. $13 is $13.
> I'll get these bastards paid one $13 at a time. It's *time* to be a cheap
> bastard.

Sorry, forgot about that. I can see your point.

Dave

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> But let me tell you, I
> have never heard anything good about any of the other ones in modern
> times (that modern times in internet time).
>

news.readfreenews.net?

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> Larry Blanchard wrote:
> ...
> >
> > news.readfreenews.net?
>
> Do they allow posting?
>
They did - I post from it now and then, but not in this group. I don't
know if Mike (the man in charge) is accepting new "full" members or not
at present. I do know he stopped for a while at least.


--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> On September 1993 plus 4188 days [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Dave Hinz wrote:
> >
> > And so we're back to agreeing on everything. But surely, there must be
> > something. Blondes or brunettes? Brunettes.
>
> Redheads

Yea, verily!

>
> > Paper or plastic? Plastic.
>
> Fabric :)
>
Ditto.

> > Oak or walnut? Walnut.
>
> Uhm...on this we agree :)
>
cherry, alder, and flame birch. walnut sometimes, oak never.

> > Dogs or cats? Dogs.
>
> Cats :)
>
Both! And fish, birds, and reptiles.

> > QWERTY or Dvor?k? QWERTY.
>
> Dvorak :)
>
With two fingers at a time, it makes no difference :-).

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 00:39:13 -0500, Silvan <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Hinz wrote:
>
>>> Especially not with $5,000+ (maybe ++++; I'm still waiting to see how bad
>>> the damage is going to wind up) in medical bills looming man. $13 is
>>> $13.
>>> I'll get these bastards paid one $13 at a time. It's *time* to be a
>>> cheap bastard.
>>
>> Sorry, forgot about that. I can see your point.
>
> And so we're back to agreeing on everything. But surely, there must be
> something. Blondes or brunettes? Brunettes.

Depends on what happened last time the wife went to the hairdresser.
Couldn't tell ya at the moment.

> Paper or plastic? Plastic.

Paper, barely. Good for wood scraps for the fireplace.

> Oak or walnut? Walnut.

Of course.

> Dogs or cats? Dogs.

Yes.

> QWERTY or Dvor?k? QWERTY.

Well, I tried Dvorak a few years ago, liked it, but then got my
first sysadmin job doing desktop and server support. 200 keyboards
with QWERTY, vs 1 as Dvorak, and it just didn't work. So, "maybe".

OK, so...vi or emacs?

Dave

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 19:43:23 -0500, Silvan <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Hinz wrote:
>
>> OK, so...vi or emacs?
>
> There is only one correct answer to this question, and the other followup to
> this post did not answer it correctly.

I missed the "emacs" response, apparently?

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 19:43:23 -0500, Silvan <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Dave Hinz wrote:
> >
> >> OK, so...vi or emacs?
> >
> > There is only one correct answer to this question, and the other followup to
> > this post did not answer it correctly.
>
> I missed the "emacs" response, apparently?
>
VI forever!

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 08:55:23 -0800, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
>> On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 19:43:23 -0500, Silvan <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > Dave Hinz wrote:
>> >
>> >> OK, so...vi or emacs?
>> >
>> > There is only one correct answer to this question, and the other followup to
>> > this post did not answer it correctly.
>>
>> I missed the "emacs" response, apparently?
>>
> VI forever!

Agreed. Although 'ed' will do, in a pinch.

Dave "hell, 'cat' works in a real pinch" Hinz

Larry Blanchard wrote:
...
>
> news.readfreenews.net?

Do they allow posting?

Larry Blanchard wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
> > Larry Blanchard wrote:
> > ...
> > >
> > > news.readfreenews.net?
> >
> > Do they allow posting?
> >
> They did - I post from it now and then, but not in this group. I don't
> know if Mike (the man in charge) is accepting new "full" members or not
> at present. I do know he stopped for a while at least.

I figured as much...I've not found any that do other than nin that are
usable...perhaps there are some, but ... :(

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 07:19:47 -0800, Larry Jaques
<novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:

>Uh, Tawm, you've got your Dr. Seuss and Burma Shave mixed up.


Substitutes
Can do
More harm
Than city fellers
On a farm

Burma-Shave


Leaves
Face soft
As woman's touch
Yet doesn't cost you
Near as much

Burma-Shave


We can't
Provide you
With a date
But we do supply
The best darn bait

Burma-Shave


Heaven's
Latest
Neophyte
Signalled left
Then turned right

Burma-Shave



http://www.fiftiesweb.com/burma1.htm



tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1 (webpage)

"Silvan" wrote

> Dave Balderstone wrote:
>
>> And if everyone who used them for free decides not to pay them 10 Euros
>> a year they'll still be ahead of the game.
>
> I always thought it was a bit odd that the German taxpayers were footing
> the
> bill for me to have a free news server.
>
> OTOH, I have a crappy but paid for news server from my ISP, so I guess I'm
> back to that. I'm too much of a cheap bastard to pay $13 a year for
> something I can get for free, and I don't see enough difference between
> these two (back on my ISP's server now) to make it worth considering the
> PITA factor of sending money off to Germany anyway.
>
I know what you mean.

I first signed up for the service when my ISP's news servers were dropping a
major chunk of each day's posts. The final straw was when they dropped all
my posts.

Since that time, I have been through three different news servers with them.
The present one actually works. The only problem is that about 5 % of the
posts are posted a little late ( 1-5 hours). I can live with that.

Soooo...., I wish them well. And I know they will provide a good service
for their customers. And I will use them as a backup if I need to in the
future.

But I can do with what I got now.

Dave Hinz wrote:

> Well, it _is_ a paypal-like thing, but OK. I think we just found
> something we disagree on!

I guess. It's just down to question of getting what you pay for, basically.
I'm already paying plenty for my ISP's server. I switched back to the
German one to see if it was doing any better on dropped articles and
whatnot. It really wasn't, but I kept using it for awhile because I had
already reconfigured my newsreader. (I used to have leafnode get articles
from *both* servers, but I stopped bothering with leafnode after it became
practical just to download articles in real time, as needed)

My ISP's server is giganews, which is a place lots of people recommend
anyway. Ounce for ounce, I don't see any substantive difference between
the two, and neither one of them carries ABPW, so there's no compelling
reason to take a crowbar to my wallet in this case.

Especially not with $5,000+ (maybe ++++; I'm still waiting to see how bad
the damage is going to wind up) in medical bills looming man. $13 is $13.
I'll get these bastards paid one $13 at a time. It's *time* to be a cheap
bastard.

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/

"Patriarch" wrote in message
> Silvan wrote in
>
> <snippage>
> > My ISP's server is giganews, which is a place lots of people recommend
> > anyway. Ounce for ounce, I don't see any substantive difference
> > between the two, and neither one of them carries ABPW, so there's no
> > compelling reason to take a crowbar to my wallet in this case.
> >
>
> Uhh... I get apbw thru Giganews. On a Comcast feed.

I access Giganews (as a paying customer) and have no problem getting abpw
either.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

Patriarch wrote:

> Uhh... I get apbw thru Giganews. On a Comcast feed. Maybe it's a subset
> thing?

Probably. It's isp.giganews.something

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/

Dave Hinz wrote:

>> Especially not with $5,000+ (maybe ++++; I'm still waiting to see how bad
>> the damage is going to wind up) in medical bills looming man. $13 is
>> $13.
>> I'll get these bastards paid one $13 at a time. It's *time* to be a
>> cheap bastard.
>
> Sorry, forgot about that. I can see your point.

And so we're back to agreeing on everything. But surely, there must be
something. Blondes or brunettes? Brunettes. Paper or plastic? Plastic.
Oak or walnut? Walnut. Dogs or cats? Dogs. QWERTY or Dvor?k? QWERTY.

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 10:01:21 -0800, "J" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Why? Apparently US taxpayers are footing the bill for German sewers.
>
>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/tax/shelter/producer.html

Do you know how to read? It's tax loophole for the rich and powerful.
"---one of the more malodorous tax shelters U.S. corporations are now
using to cut their tax rates."-----"we confirmed that the Bochum sewer
lease was a half-billion dollar deal involving the fifth largest U.S. bank --
Wachovia. (Last year, Wachovia's annual report indicated that it paid no
federal taxes on $3.6 billion in profits. A big chunk of its tax savings came
from its $3 billion in leasing activities --"

Dave Hinz wrote:

> OK, so...vi or emacs?

There is only one correct answer to this question, and the other followup to
this post did not answer it correctly.

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/

Robert Bonomi wrote:
> Do a google search for "USENET news server free" <grin>
>
> I've never really gone searching, but I know 'Tera news' offers
> free NNTP access. It's medium yucky, compared to their 'pay' service,
> but it *is* there.
>
> They're *NOT* the only one.
>
> <grin>

Ah, OK, I will admit they are not the only one. But let me tell you, I
have never heard anything good about any of the other ones in modern
times (that modern times in internet time).

P

In article <[email protected]>, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>says...
>> On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 19:43:23 -0500, Silvan <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> > Dave Hinz wrote:
>> >
>> >> OK, so...vi or emacs?
>> >
>> > There is only one correct answer to this question, and the other followup
> to
>> > this post did not answer it correctly.
>>
>> I missed the "emacs" response, apparently?
>>
>VI forever!
>
[dons flame-retardant sweatsuit]

You gotta be kidding. The only editor I've ever used that sucks worse than vi
is edlin. Even Microsoft's EDIT is easier to use than vi.

You want to see a good editor, get on a Tandem system for a while.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

Silvan <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

<snippage>
> My ISP's server is giganews, which is a place lots of people recommend
> anyway. Ounce for ounce, I don't see any substantive difference
> between the two, and neither one of them carries ABPW, so there's no
> compelling reason to take a crowbar to my wallet in this case.
>

Uhh... I get apbw thru Giganews. On a Comcast feed. Maybe it's a subset
thing?

Patriarch

Doug Miller wrote:
> [dons flame-retardant sweatsuit]
>
> You gotta be kidding. The only editor I've ever used that sucks worse than vi
> is edlin. Even Microsoft's EDIT is easier to use than vi.

No flames here, just pointing out that you choose different editors for
different reasons and no, one wouldn't choose vi for ease of use; that
isn't the point of using it. It would be like complaining that an F1
care is no good because it has a rough ride; yeah, it does have a rough
ride but if you picked one because it would go easy on your hemroids,
you picked the wrong car. OTOH, if you wanted to go fast....

A.M. Wood wrote:
> Dave, feel free to pay these folks all you want. I'm sure what they
> offer is better today. That however isn't anywhere related to my
> comment. My comment is that charging for products that are widely
> available for free is a crappy business plan.

Where is usenet offered for free outside of n.i.n? Web based services
are many many miles from usenet with a news reader. Perhaps, someday,
they might get close or even exceed but I think that is quite some
distance off.

Outside of usenet, there are web forums I regularly peruse, but they do
not have the variety and breadth of people usenet has. If they did, they
would no longer work terribly well as a web forum.

Outside of all that, I very much doubt it is a "business plan"; they are
just trying to break even. Not everyone is trying to get rich.

PK

> You're obviously not the target market, are you. Really - enjoy
> google. Some things are worth paying for, and for me, a full-featured
> robust stable fast newsserver, at a cost of $1.25 per month, is worth it.
> Hell, I spend several times that a _day_ in gasoline getting to work,
> or coffee. Sense of perspective and all that.
>
> Dave Hinz

This is what it comes down to. Those who want an NNTP feed can buy it.
Those who don't want it get to peek in via Google - well at least to some of
what a real newsfeed has.
I'm glad google took over the deja news archives and continues to make them
available, but I'd be really unhappy if I had to read newsgroups through
google.

-j

"A.M. Wood" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "So the number of people using a news server defines its value? Funny,
> I
> thought it was the completeness of its feeds. Which has nothing to do
> with users. "
>
> I said a good chunk of its value, not all. Keep in mind that
> completeness of feeds is only relevant if there is something to send.
> (The network to which I was referring.) I doubt anyone would give a
> hoot how completely they received nothing :)
>
> My point however is not whether or not the newsreader has value today.
> My point is that technology is changing. Other alternatives are
> becomming available. Those alternatives are free to users. As time
> passes, as we have seen with every other new technology, new products
> will be developed that are compatible with the new technology and
> incompatible with the old technology, rendering the older technology
> obsoltete.
>
> As I originally stated, a business plan that relies on charging money
> to use the old technology in the face of these circumstances is
> terrible. The business cannot be expected to last.

You are right.
Online grocery shopping will completely replace buying food in person.
Ebooks will replace the printed word.
Planing machines will replace hand planes.
Segways will replace taking the bus.
Mass produced beer will satisfy the masses.

Maybe it is just me, but I think nntp has some life left. The alternative
technologies do not measure up yet. Someday it will die, but that time is in
the future.

-j

"Silvan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Dave Balderstone wrote:
>
> > And if everyone who used them for free decides not to pay them 10 Euros
> > a year they'll still be ahead of the game.
>
> I always thought it was a bit odd that the German taxpayers were footing
the
> bill for me to have a free news server.

Why? Apparently US taxpayers are footing the bill for German sewers.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/tax/shelter/producer.html

-j

"A.M. Wood" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> J wrote:
>
> >
> > You are right.
> > Online grocery shopping will completely replace buying food in
> person.
>
> Online grocery shopping isn't free

It was. Ask webvan.


> > Mass produced beer will satisfy the masses.
> Interesting examples, but unlike the alternatives I was discussing,
> they aren't free.

"As time passes, as we have seen with every other new technology, new
products
will be developed that are compatible with the new technology and
incompatible with the old technology, rendering the older technology
obsoltete."

Do they have to be free? I'm addressing the topic of obsolete here.

-j

"A.M. Wood" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Dave, feel free to pay these folks all you want. I'm sure what they
> offer is better today. That however isn't anywhere related to my
> comment. My comment is that charging for products that are widely
> available for free is a crappy business plan.
>

For the most part where I live libraries are free.
They can get you almost any book.
It has been that way since before I was born.
Somehow the bookstores never got the message.
Quick, someone tell Amazon.

-j

"WD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 10:01:21 -0800, "J" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Why? Apparently US taxpayers are footing the bill for German sewers.
> >
> >http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/tax/shelter/producer.html
>
> Do you know how to read? It's tax loophole for the rich and powerful.
> "---one of the more malodorous tax shelters U.S. corporations are now
> using to cut their tax rates."-----"we confirmed that the Bochum sewer
> lease was a half-billion dollar deal involving the fifth largest U.S.
bank --
> Wachovia. (Last year, Wachovia's annual report indicated that it paid no
> federal taxes on $3.6 billion in profits. A big chunk of its tax savings
came
> from its $3 billion in leasing activities --"

Yes, I know how to read.

Tax savings for the rich and powerful means additional taxes for the poor
and oppressed.
Most taxpayers don't fall into the rich and powerful category.
Germany benefits because Wachovia is able to do this for less than a German
company because of this loophole.
Thus US tax payers are subsidizing the German sewers.
Yeah it is a bit of a mental stretch, but try and remain flexible.

-j

On 16 Feb 2005 19:05:09 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:

>Well, the German government confiscated my great-great-grandfather's land
>(a Dane) back in the 1860's, so I don't feel too bad about it.

How about taking the Indians' land here?

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 14:56:51 -0500, "Lee Michaels"
<leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote:

>
>Dear users of News.Individual.NET,


<snip of sad story>


I've used them for a few years and found them to be excellent.


I will not pay them not a bit.

I will not pay them I will quit.

I will not pay them if they call.

I will not pay them not at all.

I will not pay them in my house.

I will not pay them with my mouse.

I will not pay them with my dollars.

I will not pay them if they holler.

I will not pay them with their bombast.

I will not pay them I have Comcast.



Burma Shave






tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1 (webpage)

On September 1993 plus 4188 days [email protected] wrote:

> Dave Hinz wrote:
>
>>> Especially not with $5,000+ (maybe ++++; I'm still waiting to see how bad
>>> the damage is going to wind up) in medical bills looming man. $13 is
>>> $13.
>>> I'll get these bastards paid one $13 at a time. It's *time* to be a
>>> cheap bastard.
>>
>> Sorry, forgot about that. I can see your point.
>
> And so we're back to agreeing on everything. But surely, there must be
> something. Blondes or brunettes? Brunettes.

Redheads

> Paper or plastic? Plastic.

Fabric :)

> Oak or walnut? Walnut.

Uhm...on this we agree :)

> Dogs or cats? Dogs.

Cats :)

> QWERTY or Dvor?k? QWERTY.

Dvorak :)

Vox, the lurker

--
Think of the Linux community as a niche economy isolated by its beliefs. Kind
of like the Amish, except that our religion requires us to use _higher_
technology than everyone else. -- Donald B. Marti Jr.

On September 1993 plus 4191 days Dave Hinz wrote:

> On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 00:39:13 -0500, Silvan <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Dave Hinz wrote:
>>
>>>> Especially not with $5,000+ (maybe ++++; I'm still waiting to see how bad
>>>> the damage is going to wind up) in medical bills looming man. $13 is
>>>> $13.
>>>> I'll get these bastards paid one $13 at a time. It's *time* to be a
>>>> cheap bastard.
>>>
>>> Sorry, forgot about that. I can see your point.
>>
>> And so we're back to agreeing on everything. But surely, there must be
>> something. Blondes or brunettes? Brunettes.
>
> Depends on what happened last time the wife went to the hairdresser.
> Couldn't tell ya at the moment.
>
>> Paper or plastic? Plastic.
>
> Paper, barely. Good for wood scraps for the fireplace.
>
>> Oak or walnut? Walnut.
>
> Of course.
>
>> Dogs or cats? Dogs.
>
> Yes.
>
>> QWERTY or Dvor?k? QWERTY.
>
> Well, I tried Dvorak a few years ago, liked it, but then got my
> first sysadmin job doing desktop and server support. 200 keyboards
> with QWERTY, vs 1 as Dvorak, and it just didn't work. So, "maybe".

Get a kboard hardwired for dvorak and lug it around with
you...that's what I did for 2 years when I was doing helldesk before
I found my brain again :)

> OK, so...vi or emacs?

<points at the headers of his post> emacs, of course :)

Vox

--
Think of the Linux community as a niche economy isolated by its beliefs. Kind
of like the Amish, except that our religion requires us to use _higher_
technology than everyone else. -- Donald B. Marti Jr.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Robert Bonomi) wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Paul Kierstead <[email protected]> wrote:
> >A.M. Wood wrote:
> >> Dave, feel free to pay these folks all you want. I'm sure what they
> >> offer is better today. That however isn't anywhere related to my
> >> comment. My comment is that charging for products that are widely
> >> available for free is a crappy business plan.
> >
> >Where is usenet offered for free outside of n.i.n? Web based services
> >are many many miles from usenet with a news reader. Perhaps, someday,
> >they might get close or even exceed but I think that is quite some
> >distance off.
>
> Do a google search for "USENET news server free" <grin>
>
> I've never really gone searching, but I know 'Tera news' offers
> free NNTP access. It's medium yucky, compared to their 'pay' service,
> but it *is* there.
>
> They're *NOT* the only one.

True...and it's being discussed in many newsgroups.

A friend is trying one in Denmark, he dropped it after one day.

--
--------------------------------------------------------
Personal e-mail is the n7bsn but at amsat.org
This posting address is a spam-trap and seldom read
RV and Camping FAQ can be found at
http://www.ralphandellen.us/rv

"Green Eggs & Ham" for Tom

Tom Watson wrote:


> I've used them for a few years and found them to be excellent.
>
>
> I will not pay them not a bit.
>
> I will not pay them I will quit.
>
> I will not pay them if they call.
>
> I will not pay them not at all.
>
> I will not pay them in my house.
>
> I will not pay them with my mouse.
>
> I will not pay them with my dollars.
>
> I will not pay them if they holler.
>
> I will not pay them with their bombast.
>
> I will not pay them I have Comcast.
>
>
>
> Burma Shave

Dave Balderstone wrote:

> And if everyone who used them for free decides not to pay them 10 Euros
> a year they'll still be ahead of the game.

I always thought it was a bit odd that the German taxpayers were footing the
bill for me to have a free news server.

OTOH, I have a crappy but paid for news server from my ISP, so I guess I'm
back to that. I'm too much of a cheap bastard to pay $13 a year for
something I can get for free, and I don't see enough difference between
these two (back on my ISP's server now) to make it worth considering the
PITA factor of sending money off to Germany anyway.

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/