I2C control.

Regardless of the merits of informing the "googlers" as you call them, *you* are creating a problem for the rest of us: Of the six messages from you that are currently in my local news server's cache for comp.arch.embedded, exactly zero have any on-topic content. You are turning into a net.troll yourself.

If you are going to persist in your campaign, at least do it privately, rather than in the group(s).

-- Dave Tweed

Posting privately would require knowing a working email address for the offender - lots of posters these days fake their addresses in the hope of avoiding (or at least delaying) the onslaught of spam. It would also mean only one person gets informed - posting to the newsgroup informs all google trolls.

Some people have pet cats. Others have pet hates. I'd agree with CBFalconer that lack of context in google troll posts is one of the most annoying current abuses of Usenet, and I'm glad some one is trying to do something about it (I'm assuming that complaining to Google has failed), thus saving the rest of us the effort.

I did qualify - see underline. To the google end, I put up a suggestion for letter writing to TIME about 2 weeks ago, when they had just done an article on Google, China, and censoring. I got no response, and AFAICS Time got no (publishable) letters. I thought that was a golden opportunity to shame Google into compliance. snipped-for-privacy@time.com.

Of course I will then bitch and holler about top-posting and snipping. The evangelists work is never done :-) Where the cursor lands up only affects where you start snipping. Ultimately it is all grist.

As you very well know, that is impossible, since virtually all offenders use invalid return addresses. BTW, topicality and netiquette is always on-topic.

The only real cure is to reform Google. But over one years efforts at that have had no effect.

The Google interface is not bad at all, I suspect plain emotional and/or agenda driven motivation of all those anti top - posting, whatever campaigns. Whether Google is evil or not by hijacking so much of the communications on the planet (usenet being only a part of what they take over) is another issue, of course - with an obvious answer...

The world changes, languages evolve etc. Part of that change is of course campaigning noise, which I am adding to now.

To make this posting contain at least some substance, let me say this: With todays bandwidths I often choose to insert my quotes the old-fashioned line-interleaved way in a top-posted message (like this one). This provides both the complete context and the details I refer to. I doubt there are many users having a 2400 bps connection nowadays which was the case in the early days of usenet or mailing lists, so bandwidth is not an issue.

Dimiter

------------------------------------------------------ Dimiter Popoff Transgalactic Instruments

------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------- CBFalc> > CBFalc> >

I think what we've gleaned from this little exchange is that it all depends on how one has one's newsreader set up. One has a choice of letting the newsreader provide context, or not. (I do.)

Also: one has a choice of being irritated by top-posting or context-less messages, or not (I don't). Similarly, one has a choice of being irritated by the noise generated by those who evangelise about the right way to post messages, or not (I mostly don't, but I can't defeat it with my newsreader - so I skip the messages, which is a shame as it means I tend to skip the contributor's other inputs too).

Steve

I show thread context in my newsreader, but lack of context in the posts themselves is still an annoyance - I have to specifically move back through the thread to see the context. The result is that google troll posts are far less useful to me or anyone else, and far less likely to get a helpful response.

One should also take into account the other major use of Usenet postings

- they are archived (by Google, no less) and searchable as a source of information. When the context is lacking, searches are close to useless, as posts won't match searches with terms spanning posts, as the context is lost.

Usenet evangelists are like the Green Party - you wouldn't want them running the country, but it's important to have them around none the less.

I may have to eat humble pie [1].

The newsgroup I'm most closely involved with is uk.music.guitar - a motley collection of plank-spanking degenerates who meet up from time to time to eat curry, drink beer [2], and get noisy [3]. Tonight a non-regular posted a one-line non-sequitur message [4] in a busy thread [5]. I (and others) had no clue re context. Your point was very clearly illustrated.

Steve