Re: Proposing alt.security.engineering

William Stickers <[email protected]> posted:

> Keith wrote:
> > 
> > Keith <[email protected]> posted:
> > 
> > > 
> > > William Stickers <[email protected]> posted:
> > > 
> > > > Keith wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > first of all i am an amateur (that doesn't mean i'm incompetent quiz me if you 
> > > > > want), but i feel like security engineering as a field should have a sub-hierarchy
> > > > > 
> > > > > again i have no control group perms, so would be really cool if someone could
> > > > > create this :D
> > > > 
> > > > <https://www.reddit.com/r/securityengineering/>
> > > 
> > > why can't we have both spaces?
> > 
> > i'm just going to set this shit up myself thats the best thing about this platform
> > no one can censor you because you can just run everything independently, no wonder
> > it has been consistently active for like 50+ years
> 
> I don't think you quite get it. The reason there are not half a dozen 
> usenetters on here explaining the pros and cons of creating this group is 
> because they have moved on. Mostly everyone has, even the spammers have given 
> up. You've missed the party.
> Good luck with sending the newgroup cmsg. I don't know of any NSPs that allow 
> them anymore.

there's always a way :D 

or if there actually isn't why not just create a separate system that could 
be interoperable with usenet. 

i just don't understand the negativity here, something being unpopular doesn't
mean there isn't inherent value in it, i am a fan of distributed nearly uncensor-
able systems and i know i'm not the only one.

"people have moved on" yet the protocol remains consistently active across a
variety of newsgroups.