Re: Fediverse newsgroup

Schlomo Goldberg  <[email protected]> wrote:
>William Stickers <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> 
>>> William Stickers <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> >>. . . 
>>> 
>>> >Seriously, Adam, what's the point?  There's over a hundred thousand
>>> >empty froups. No one is going to notice another one. It just doesn't
>>> >matter any more.  If I could find a swerver that would accept a control
>>> >message I'd send the newgroup for him because one more empty froup if
>>> >it isn't used makes no difference at all. The golden days are gone.
>>> 
>>> Not making things worse ALWAYS matters. Doing it right ALWAYS matters.
>>> 
>>> Please don't hijack the proposal. He didn't request this.
>>> 
>>> The first failed newsgroup made Usenet worse. The first proponent who
>>> wanted a very narrow newsgroup just because he didn't want to post in a
>>> broader newsgroup and wasn't discussing the topic harmed Usenet.
>>> 
>>> Of course it's always mattered whether anyone is discussing the topic.
>>> Are we here for discussion, or are we here to make empty froups?
>>
>> I don't disagree with your sentiments.
>
>I disagree with his sentiments.
>
>Adam is stuck in early 90s. In 2024, newsgroups are nothing more than
>tags. Applying a "fediverse" tag to a post about fediverse don't "create
>failed newsgroup", it just helps interested parties to find this
>converstation (and other similar conversations). No one cares how many
>tags there are. They should be created automatically based on Newsgroups
>header and disappear when all posts are long gone. I would support
>keeping permanent list of tags based on historical newsgroups, but
>basically yeah, "creating a newsgroup" is no different than applying a
>tag to a post. 
>
>Don't know why Adam is still pretending that it's a big deal.

If one of your holey sockpuppets is clever enough to operate a news
server, then do so and you and your socks may create as many spamtraps
as you like.