Moving ABML to the Rec Hierarchy?

Barry Ruck wrote:
> It happens that Kat Hein formulated :
>> In case people missed the developments in the "I need a recommendation
>> for a usenet service..." thread: Thanks to the governor of NY putting
>> pressure on ISP's to stop carrying the binary groups (and I suspect
>> the ISP's being more than happy to comply, to free up the bandwidth)
>> Verizon has announced that they will no longer carry the ALT
>> hierarchy, or anything other than "the big 8" and it's possible that
>> other ISP's will follow Verizon's stupid move.
>>
>> As a result, it's been suggested that we might want to move over to
>> the Rec Hierarchy. This plan was first suggested circa 1996, according
>> to William George Ferguson, but at that point, the Powers That Be
>> wouldn't let ABML move to rec.arts.books.m-lackey, but said their
>> structure system would put us under rec.arts.sf.written.m-lackey.
>> Apparently there was much heated debate and flames about it because
>> people didn't want to become RASWML and the move eventually got tabled.
>>
>> Well, we don't get into massive wars like that around here anymore,
>> but I still want to hear opinions, just in case. Personally, I
>> think not liking the new name of the group isn't a compelling reason
>> not to move when staying could mean that eventually only a couple
>> people would be able to access ABML for free (other than via the joke
>> that is google groups) But ABML does have a long history, and maybe it
>> would be too hard for people to get used to the new name and digs.
>>
>> So what does everyone think? Should we move over to Rec, even if it
>> means that likely we'd become RASWML, or should we only move if we can
>> become RAMBL, or not move at all? All opinions and suggestions are
>> welcome!
>>
>> Kat-who-really-needs-to find-her-sig
>
> To be absoluitly honest, this only affects US ISPs.
>
> If you really want access, then take up an account with individual.net,
> which is what I did when my ISP's news servers were really flaky.
>


Ah, so you're okay with only you, Az ,John, Dave, et al having free
access to ABML and the rest of us can pay or not have access? Just as
long as it doesn't effect you?

I guess I thought better of the remaining ABML denizens than you do of
those of us in the U.S.

Kat
 >> Stay informed about: Moving ABML to the Rec Hierarchy? 

Kat Hein wrote:
> Barry Ruck wrote:
>> It happens that Kat Hein formulated :
>>> In case people missed the developments in the "I need a
>>> recommendation for a usenet service..." thread: Thanks to the
>>> governor of NY putting pressure on ISP's to stop carrying the
>>> binary groups (and I suspect the ISP's being more than happy to
>>> comply, to free up the bandwidth) Verizon has announced that they
>>> will no longer carry the ALT hierarchy, or anything other than
"the
>>> big 8" and it's possible that other ISP's will follow Verizon's
>>> stupid move.
>>>
>>> As a result, it's been suggested that we might want to move over
to
>>> the Rec Hierarchy. This plan was first suggested circa 1996,
>>> according to William George Ferguson, but at that point, the
Powers
>>> That Be wouldn't let ABML move to rec.arts.books.m-lackey, but
said
>>> their structure system would put us under
>>> rec.arts.sf.written.m-lackey. Apparently there was much heated
>>> debate and flames about it because people didn't want to become
>>> RASWML and the move eventually got tabled.
>>>
>>> Well, we don't get into massive wars like that around here
anymore,
>>> but I still want to hear opinions, just in case. Personally, I
>>> think not liking the new name of the group isn't a compelling
reason
>>> not to move when staying could mean that eventually only a couple
>>> people would be able to access ABML for free (other than via the
>>> joke that is google groups) But ABML does have a long history, and
>>> maybe it would be too hard for people to get used to the new name
>>> and digs.
>>>
>>> So what does everyone think? Should we move over to Rec, even if
it
>>> means that likely we'd become RASWML, or should we only move if we
>>> can become RAMBL, or not move at all? All opinions and suggestions
>>> are welcome!
>>>
>>> Kat-who-really-needs-to find-her-sig
>>
>> To be absoluitly honest, this only affects US ISPs.
>>
>> If you really want access, then take up an account with
>> individual.net, which is what I did when my ISP's news servers were
>> really flaky.
>>
>
>
> Ah, so you're okay with only you, Az ,John, Dave, et al having free
> access to ABML and the rest of us can pay or not have access? Just
as
> long as it doesn't effect you?
>
> I guess I thought better of the remaining ABML denizens than you do
of
> those of us in the U.S.
>
> Kat

No. Quite simply what will happen is this. The new group will (
eventually ) be formed. It will eventually propogate it's way through
Usenet.
In the mean time, people will continue to find and use a.b.m.l
Eventually, there will be different people using both.

The reason for this is quite simple. Despite the wishes of US
politicians, the rest of the world will not go away, nor will we bow
down to their dictates. Usenet groups do not dissapear, they stay
there. Just see how many servers *still* have a feed for
soc.genealogy.uk+ireland
Bearing in mind that this was a "big 8" group that was supposedly
split and then killed off years ago.

If YOU have a problem, then, I am sorry, but YOU will have to sort it
out.

I am not being anti US, or anything else, but what the hell, I don't
like the climate in Canada - let's try moving the Gulf Stream !!!!

And actually Kat, I thought better of you, but perhaps I was wrong.
 >> Stay informed about: Moving ABML to the Rec Hierarchy? 

<snip>

Hey, no fighting allowed here! The Internet is known for frequent
misinterpretations, due to the lack of face-to-face contact, and I think
there's been some on both ends here. Kat & Beldin, as a member of the
Brute Squad, Mommy Division, I hereby order y'all to apologize to each
other now, or go to your rooms and stay there until dinner

1. As Beldin points out, yes, this only affects US customers of Verizon
right now, which is a small subset of our group. But, you never know
what the future holds for you and your ISP. (I certainly have my doubts
about my current ISP.) Dave Joll has already given us an example of
alt.* suppression starting in Australia, too.

2. Beldin is also correct that a.b.m-l will not just disappear, due to
the nature of Usenet. I propose that we keep a current FAQ and link to
the new group in a.b.m-l, so that new and returning members can find us,
if they choose.

3. I have assumed that everyone here will make the move with us? I see
no reason not to, but please enlighten me if you don't want to move.

4. No flames allowed

Edna


---|)--- Edna Huelsenbeck (huelsenbeck@gmailDOTcom) ------------
---|---- Goddess of the ABML Out-of-Practice-Musicians Band -----
--/|---- Member, Brute Squad, Mommy Division --------------------
-| |')-- Provisional Member of the Sisterhood of Mess -----------
--\|/----Official Bard of the Book and Bridle -------------------
|
'
 >> Stay informed about: Moving ABML to the Rec Hierarchy? 

Kat Hein wrote:
> In case people missed the developments in the "I need a recommendation
> for a usenet service..." thread: Thanks to the governor of NY putting
> pressure on ISP's to stop carrying the binary groups (and I suspect the
> ISP's being more than happy to comply, to free up the bandwidth) Verizon
> has announced that they will no longer carry the ALT hierarchy, or
> anything other than "the big 8" and it's possible that other ISP's will
> follow Verizon's stupid move.
>
> As a result, it's been suggested that we might want to move over to the
> Rec Hierarchy. This plan was first suggested circa 1996, according to
> William George Ferguson, but at that point, the Powers That Be wouldn't
> let ABML move to rec.arts.books.m-lackey, but said their structure
> system would put us under rec.arts.sf.written.m-lackey. Apparently there
> was much heated debate and flames about it because people didn't want to
> become RASWML and the move eventually got tabled.
>
> Well, we don't get into massive wars like that around here anymore, but
> I still want to hear opinions, just in case. Personally, I think not
> liking the new name of the group isn't a compelling reason not to move
> when staying could mean that eventually only a couple people would be
> able to access ABML for free (other than via the joke that is google
> groups) But ABML does have a long history, and maybe it would be too
> hard for people to get used to the new name and digs.
>
> So what does everyone think? Should we move over to Rec, even if it
> means that likely we'd become RASWML, or should we only move if we can
> become RAMBL, or not move at all? All opinions and suggestions are
> welcome!
>
> Kat-who-really-needs-to find-her-sig

It is a matter of supreme indifference to me. Just tell me where
to find y'all, and I'll be there if I can.

SAMK
 >> Stay informed about: Moving ABML to the Rec Hierarchy? 

"Kat Hein" <katenigma00 DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:xSR7k.10113$jI5.9605@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com...
> In case people missed the developments in the "I need a recommendation for
> a usenet service..." thread: Thanks to the governor of NY putting pressure
> on ISP's to stop carrying the binary groups (and I suspect the ISP's being
> more than happy to comply, to free up the bandwidth) Verizon has announced
> that they will no longer carry the ALT hierarchy, or anything other than
> "the big 8" and it's possible that other ISP's will follow Verizon's
> stupid move.
>
> As a result, it's been suggested that we might want to move over to the
> Rec Hierarchy. This plan was first suggested circa 1996, according to
> William George Ferguson, but at that point, the Powers That Be wouldn't
> let ABML move to rec.arts.books.m-lackey, but said their structure system
> would put us under rec.arts.sf.written.m-lackey. Apparently there was much
> heated debate and flames about it because people didn't want to become
> RASWML and the move eventually got tabled.
>
> Well, we don't get into massive wars like that around here anymore, but I
> still want to hear opinions, just in case. Personally, I think not
> liking the new name of the group isn't a compelling reason not to move
> when staying could mean that eventually only a couple people would be able
> to access ABML for free (other than via the joke that is google groups)
> But ABML does have a long history, and maybe it would be too hard for
> people to get used to the new name and digs.
>
> So what does everyone think? Should we move over to Rec, even if it means
> that likely we'd become RASWML, or should we only move if we can become
> RAMBL, or not move at all? All opinions and suggestions are welcome!

I don't mind moving. If RASWML or RABML or whatever turns up, I'll go
there.

I don't mind staying, either. I'll probably do that even if we move,
since I doubt anyone will delete ABML in the process.

All I care about is that somebody else does the paperwork. {Smile, wink}

> Kat-who-really-needs-to find-her-sig

Anne Elizabeth Baldwin
 >> Stay informed about: Moving ABML to the Rec Hierarchy? 

"SAMK" <dimarchos DeleteThis @comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Aq2dnVqUxv35-v3VnZ2dnUVZ_rLinZ2d@comcast.com...
> Kat Hein wrote:
>> In case people missed the developments in the "I need a recommendation
>> for a usenet service..." thread: Thanks to the governor of NY putting
>> pressure on ISP's to stop carrying the binary groups (and I suspect the
>> ISP's being more than happy to comply, to free up the bandwidth) Verizon
>> has announced that they will no longer carry the ALT hierarchy, or
>> anything other than "the big 8" and it's possible that other ISP's will
>> follow Verizon's stupid move.
>>
>> As a result, it's been suggested that we might want to move over to the
>> Rec Hierarchy. This plan was first suggested circa 1996, according to
>> William George Ferguson, but at that point, the Powers That Be wouldn't
>> let ABML move to rec.arts.books.m-lackey, but said their structure system
>> would put us under rec.arts.sf.written.m-lackey. Apparently there was
>> much heated debate and flames about it because people didn't want to
>> become RASWML and the move eventually got tabled.
>>
>> Well, we don't get into massive wars like that around here anymore, but I
>> still want to hear opinions, just in case. Personally, I think not
>> liking the new name of the group isn't a compelling reason not to move
>> when staying could mean that eventually only a couple people would be
>> able to access ABML for free (other than via the joke that is google
>> groups) But ABML does have a long history, and maybe it would be too hard
>> for people to get used to the new name and digs.
>>
>> So what does everyone think? Should we move over to Rec, even if it means
>> that likely we'd become RASWML, or should we only move if we can become
>> RAMBL, or not move at all? All opinions and suggestions are welcome!
>>
>> Kat-who-really-needs-to find-her-sig
>
> It is a matter of supreme indifference to me. Just tell me where
> to find y'all, and I'll be there if I can.

Yes, exactly. Thank you for saying it better than I did! {BIG SMILE}


Anne Elizabeth Baldwin


> SAMK
 >> Stay informed about: Moving ABML to the Rec Hierarchy? 

On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 19:50:15 +0100, Barry Ruck
<barry.ruck.TakeThisOut@ntlworld.com> wrote:

>It happens that Kat Hein formulated :
>> In case people missed the developments in the "I need a recommendation for a
>> usenet service..." thread: Thanks to the governor of NY putting pressure on
>> ISP's to stop carrying the binary groups (and I suspect the ISP's being more
>> than happy to comply, to free up the bandwidth) Verizon has announced that
>> they will no longer carry the ALT hierarchy, or anything other than "the big
>> 8" and it's possible that other ISP's will follow Verizon's stupid move.
>>
>> As a result, it's been suggested that we might want to move over to the Rec
>> Hierarchy. This plan was first suggested circa 1996, according to William
>> George Ferguson, but at that point, the Powers That Be wouldn't let ABML move
>> to rec.arts.books.m-lackey, but said their structure system would put us
>> under rec.arts.sf.written.m-lackey. Apparently there was much heated debate
>> and flames about it because people didn't want to become RASWML and the move
>> eventually got tabled.
>>
>> Well, we don't get into massive wars like that around here anymore, but I
>> still want to hear opinions, just in case. Personally, I think not liking
>> the new name of the group isn't a compelling reason not to move when staying
>> could mean that eventually only a couple people would be able to access ABML
>> for free (other than via the joke that is google groups) But ABML does have a
>> long history, and maybe it would be too hard for people to get used to the
>> new name and digs.
>>
>> So what does everyone think? Should we move over to Rec, even if it means
>> that likely we'd become RASWML, or should we only move if we can become
>> RAMBL, or not move at all? All opinions and suggestions are welcome!
>>
>> Kat-who-really-needs-to find-her-sig
>
>To be absoluitly honest, this only affects US ISPs.
>
>If you really want access, then take up an account with individual.net,
>which is what I did when my ISP's news servers were really flaky.

I agree. And if we do move the group, how long would it take for news
servers to pick up the new group?
--
John Oliver
jdoliver.TakeThisOut@westnet.com.au
AIM or MSN jdoliver98
 >> Stay informed about: Moving ABML to the Rec Hierarchy? 

> > So what does everyone think? Should we move over to Rec, even
> > if it means that likely we'd become RASWML, or should we only
> > move if we can become RAMBL, or not move at all? All opinions
> > and suggestions are welcome!


> It is a matter of supreme indifference to me. Just tell me where
> to find y'all, and I'll be there if I can.

Ditto from this lurker.

Joyce Haslam.

--

"The spear in the Other's heart is in your own: you are he." -- Surak
 >> Stay informed about: Moving ABML to the Rec Hierarchy? 

John Oliver wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 19:50:15 +0100, Barry Ruck
> <barry.ruck.DeleteThis@ntlworld.com> wrote:

>> To be absoluitly honest, this only affects US ISPs.
>>
>> If you really want access, then take up an account with individual.net,
>> which is what I did when my ISP's news servers were really flaky.
>
> I agree. And if we do move the group, how long would it take for news
> servers to pick up the new group?
> --
> John Oliver

There's also web-based alternatives - a.b.m.l is carried in Google
Groups (easy to search the archives that way).

.... Bruce (who's neutral on the move, especially since I post only about
once per year these days).
 >> Stay informed about: Moving ABML to the Rec Hierarchy? 

"Kat Hein" <katenigma00 RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote

> Barry Ruck wrote:

>> To be absoluitly honest, this only affects US ISPs.
>> If you really want access, then take up an account with individual.net,
>> which is what I did when my ISP's news servers were really flaky.

> Ah, so you're okay with only you, Az ,John, Dave, et al having free access
> to ABML and the rest of us can pay or not have access? Just as long as it
> doesn't effect you?

Actually Australia's got something similar going on -
when ihug.co.nz got taken over by tig.com.au, they
dropped all the alt.binaries.* groups, citing Australian
law - and I wouldn't put it past the current incompetents
in charge to mysteriously lose the rest of them at some point.
 >> Stay informed about: Moving ABML to the Rec Hierarchy? 

"Dave Joll" <dont.DeleteThis@bother.trying> wrote in message
news:g3oune$57d$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> "Kat Hein" <katenigma00.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>> Barry Ruck wrote:
>
>>> To be absoluitly honest, this only affects US ISPs.
>>> If you really want access, then take up an account with individual.net,
>>> which is what I did when my ISP's news servers were really flaky.
>
>> Ah, so you're okay with only you, Az ,John, Dave, et al having free
>> access
>> to ABML and the rest of us can pay or not have access? Just as long as it
>> doesn't effect you?
>
> Actually Australia's got something similar going on -

I'm afraid I'm not surprised. Censorship has never been limited to one
country before. {half-smile}

> when ihug.co.nz got taken over by tig.com.au, they
> dropped all the alt.binaries.* groups, citing Australian
> law - and I wouldn't put it past the current incompetents
> in charge to mysteriously lose the rest of them at some point.

How is your reception of the Big-8 newsgroups? I found an official list
here: http://moleski.net/newsgroups/checkgroups/list.htm Not that I expect
you to go thru the whole thing, but I'd like to know how rec.arts.* fares.
If we're going to bother to move, I'd like to feel sure you'd get the new
group. {Smile}


Anne Elizabeth Baldwin
 >> Stay informed about: Moving ABML to the Rec Hierarchy? 

My opinion:

I vote no and here's why.

1) From what I understand, this only affects some ISP's and not
all, not even a majority.
2) There are alternatives for connection to this group, many
which are free. I'm using one (using the bnb servers) and there
are others (Google groups, individual.net, etc).
3) The reason for the shift is a US only problem and we pride
ourselves at being an international group (Oz, NZ, UK, Germany,
Canada, etc). To shift because of one nation's stupidity at the
inconvenience of the rest is unfair.
4) The alt.books.m-lackey group is not getting deleted so it
will still be here and there will still be people posting to it.
Adding another group will just create schism and disconnect in a
community we all hold dear

While I recognize and sympathize with those who have the
inconvenience of hunting down a newsfeed (I went through that
when my ISP decided to block usenet account access from non-ISP
IP addresses), I think that this is jumping the gun a bit much.

Now, please, let's be civil here. We pride ourselves in being an
accepting community, open to differing opinions and different
viewpoints. Accusing each other of nation-centricity is no way
to go forward with this. If we do so, then we might as well let
ABML die because, at that point, it already has.

There are a number of people here with influence, strings that
can be pulled, etc. Rather than pointing fingers and saying
"Well why don't you just...", wouldn't it be better to say, "Hey,
I know someone who..." and try and help each other keep the
community going?

Obviously, this is all my opinion and my observations. I don't
pretend to speak for everyone, or event the majority. But I want
to remember ABML as a nice place to visit, to participate in. If
we delve into flaming, name-calling, and finger-pointing, than
ABML is dead and I'll just have to find some other place to be.

Tristaan
--
Beware Spam Trap!: "us" is an "ogre"
*******************************************************
Ogre-Monk, AIM TristaanOgre
"So good-bye for now and I'll see you again
Some way, some how
When it's my time to go to the other side
I'll hold you again and melt at your smile
Now I have all the ones that I am with
You taught me not to take for granted
The time that we have to show that we care
Speak into their lives and their hearts while they're here
And say I LOVE YOU!!"

~Disciple "Things Left Unsaid"

Theologian in training http://ballymennoniteblogger.blogspot.com/
*******************************************************
 >> Stay informed about: Moving ABML to the Rec Hierarchy? 

On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 12:27:05 -0700, Kat Hein <katenigma00.DeleteThis@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Ah, so you're okay with only you, Az ,John, Dave, et al having free
>access to ABML and the rest of us can pay or not have access? Just as
>long as it doesn't effect you?
>
>I guess I thought better of the remaining ABML denizens than you do of
>those of us in the U.S.
>
>Kat

Actually, I already have to pay in order to get ABML. It's not
carried by my local server and although I have asked them to add it
they have yet to do so (and I've been with my current ISP for over a
year now so I'm not holding my breath).

I consider the small amount I pay per month to be well worth the
inconvenience of getting the group.

Az
 >> Stay informed about: Moving ABML to the Rec Hierarchy?