Posted by TJ on 10/21/43 11:26

In news:opswwmgvamx5vgts@zoete_b,
Barbara de Zoete <b_de_zoete@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 16:31:56 -0400, TJ <none@noemail.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In news:opswwkuxxyx5vgts@zoete_b,
>> Barbara de Zoete <b_de_zoete@hotmail.com> typed:
>>
>>> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 16:02:45 -0400, TJ <none@noemail.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> [Google Groups]
>>>
>>>> I still don't think I understand. Are you saying you don't mind if
>>>> your posts get archived, so long as nobody can respond to them? Or
>>>> just that nobody who sees them via Google Groups need reply?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't like the 'get to be a member and participate' bit of Google
>>> Groups.
>>
>> Why? You personally are either a "member" of an ISP that includes
>> Usenet newsgroups as part of your service, or you subscribe to an
>> outside source.
>>> You don't need to be a member to participate in usenet.
>>
>> Sure ya do. Be it ISP, news provider, or Google Groups, one is
>> required to be a 'member' to participate.
>>
>
> I'm not sure. I just sense a difference in having an ISP provide
> newsgroups, a newsserver provide newsgroups or Google provide not
> only newsgroups but also an interface to participate in them (Google
> being the example here, since there are others) and some subscription
> mechanism with it.

There's a BIG difference. And I don't blame you for having a problem with
posts from Google Groups. Who do you think took the overflow when AOL
discontinued Usenet service a while ago? ;)

[Back to original message]