On 05/10/2021 20:43, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

> Jason Evans <jsevans@mailfence.com> wrote:

>> On Mon, 4 Oct 2021 22:30:25 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>> The big thing that we ask for Big-8 newsgroups is that there is already a
>> community that is willing to use it instead of the "build it and they
>> will come" philosphy.
>
> Same thing applies in alt.*.

Maybe it is time to change the way Usenet is managed?

It's now obvious (2023) that most newsgroups are dead anyway, so
creating new newsgroup that's empty is not problem at all.
Instead, if people created new Big-8 newsgroups only if they already
have support, and alt.* newsgroups -- just because they are one or two
only persons desiring its creation, it probably in the future created
half-empty newsgroups in alt.* and sort of popular newsgroups in Big-8
hierarchies.

Say, I once wanted to create or find a Bitcoin newsgroup and found
alt.bitcoins to be already existing.

What I say may seems strange but in the age of dying Usenet no new alt.*
newsgroups can make much harm because most of them are empty anyway, but
sometimes new alt.* newsgroup may work well, -- well, in some cases.

--
Y. Sputnik
sputnikmsdos6.22@gmail.com
I'm using Consolas font on my GNU/Linux machine.

Y. Sputnik <sputnikmsdos6.22@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 05/10/2021 20:43, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>Jason Evans <jsevans@mailfence.com> wrote:

>>>The big thing that we ask for Big-8 newsgroups is that there is already a
>>>community that is willing to use it instead of the "build it and they
>>>will come" philosphy.

>>Same thing applies in alt.*.

>Maybe it is time to change the way Usenet is managed?

No.

A decent proponent is willing to make the effort to find and build an
audience to discuss the topic of interest. Once there is a decent sized
audience discussing a topic, then the proponent, consulting with those
discussing the topic, might decide that a separate newsgroup would help
improve discussion.

The decision about Big 8 or alt.* depends on where in the hierarchy tree
groups for similar and related topics had been newgrouped in the past.

What we need from proponents would be a willingness to take the need to
find and build an audience for discussion of a topic seriously. That has
never changed.

You weren't interested in being a decent proponent.

>It's now obvious (2023) that most newsgroups are dead anyway, so
>creating new newsgroup that's empty is not problem at all.

The goal should be discussion of the topic, not adding another likely
spamtrap to the hierarchy of group names.

>Instead, if people created new Big-8 newsgroups only if they already
>have support, and alt.* newsgroups -- just because they are one or two
>only persons desiring its creation, it probably in the future created
>half-empty newsgroups in alt.* and sort of popular newsgroups in Big-8
>hierarchies.

>Say, I once wanted to create or find a Bitcoin newsgroup and found
>alt.bitcoins to be already existing.

No, that's not what happened. The late Bruce Esquibel hijacked your
proposal. Given that he was a News administrator, he was well aware it
was an asshole move on his part. He did it to flame me. I never spoke to
him again after that.

>What I say may seems strange but in the age of dying Usenet no new alt.*
>newsgroups can make much harm because most of them are empty anyway, but
>sometimes new alt.* newsgroup may work well, -- well, in some cases.

You didn't want advice at the time and you never looked for an audience. In
8 years, you've never bothered to do anything.

On Wed, 10 May 2023 18:27:36 -0000 (UTC)
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> The goal should be discussion of the topic, not adding another likely
> spamtrap to the hierarchy of group names.

Typical Kerman the German bureaucracy. "If you can't do it perfectly
with forever guarantees, you should sit on your hands and do nothing at
all, but do demonstrate your technical and historical knowledge while
doing nothing." Don't move forward. Just explain why everybody and
nobody and even Parzival should do nothing, and stick to that position
like a tap root.

However Kerman's suggestion that the Big Eight should meddle with the
alt.* hierarchy will only cause more friction and confusion. This is a
German paper-pusher's dream!

Of course there's always an excuse to do nothing and never create any
new newsgroups because Kerman the German thinks it can't work without
his rubber stamp. It's ad hoc, impromptu, "let's all figure it out
together" kind of system. Different server operators can do different
things, or agree to do the same things with management of a group in
the alt.* hierarchy.

The ad-hoc system works great on Mastodon and ActivityPub systems.
Millions of people are using these systems now without Kerman the
German's sage lordship telling them a festering problem is better than
an imperfect solution.

We don't need Newszatsgruppen Bambi Ding Dongs or News Waffen Yes Yes
men stepping in to call the shots. Kerman the German is trying to play
you for suckers. He is staging a "binARYAN BITzkrieg" to pwn all your
binary.

Herr Kerman is stealthily trying to convert you into his vassal.

--

The Germanator
De-racinating Kerman the German and his Binaryan Bitzkrieg

The Usenet's foremost technical expert on everything, Kerman the
German, still has not managed to set up his own NNTP server after all
these years of bureaucratic bloviating.

Your binaryan bitzkrieg will wash out, Herr Kerman. You are a
kraut-eating pickle popper.

If it is true power you seek, set up your own NNTP server.

--

The Germanator
De-racinating Kerman the German and his Binaryan Bitzkrieg

Kerman the German is a bungling binary bureaucrat. Pay him no mind.

His messages basically boil down to these tropes:

1. Say nothing, because you can never say anything good enough.
2. Do nothing, because you can never do it right.
3. Follow these rules.

--

The Germanator
De-racinating Kerman the German and his Binaryan Bitzkrieg