Hi all,is done today.
I was concerned to read this:
============
Effective February 22, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support new Usenet content. Posting and subscribing will be disallowed, and new content from Usenet peers will not appear. Viewing and searching of historical data will still be supported as it
============social media chaos).
I suppose that the talk.origins group, like the creationism issue generally, are not nearly as big as they were. And of course I hardly post on newsgroups anymore (or much at all, blogging has also decline compared to general fragmented/marketized
But: it would be nice if something continued. Do people have advice / ideas on the following?
1. What are modern news-readers / archives for Usenet, once Google Groups stops doing it?
2. Is creating a talk.origins Google Group, which is purely a Google Group rather than a usenet thing, a feasible option?
On 2/8/24 3:14 PM, Nick Matzke wrote:
Hi all,There's hope for us all. The following is copypasta from the
I was concerned to read this:
============
Effective February 22, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support new
Usenet content. Posting and subscribing will be disallowed, and new
content from Usenet peers will not appear. Viewing and searching of
historical data will still be supported as it is done today.
============
I suppose that the talk.origins group, like the creationism issue
generally, are not nearly as big as they were. And of course I hardly
post on newsgroups anymore (or much at all, blogging has also decline
compared to general fragmented/marketized social media chaos).
But: it would be nice if something continued. Do people have advice /
ideas on the following?
1. What are modern news-readers / archives for Usenet, once Google Groups stops doing it?
2. Is creating a talk.origins Google Group, which is purely a Google
Group rather than a usenet thing, a feasible option?
(Full disclosure, I still barely understand what usenet is/was, I was
not computer-aware until the mid 1990s.)
Cheers!
Nick Matzke
threatening message's "Learn more":
What do I need to do?
If you don’t actively engage with Usenet content, you don’t need to do anything. Current Usenet users will need to do two things before
February 22, 2024 if they want to continue engaging with Usenet content:
%%%%%
Find a new Usenet client. Several free and paid alternatives are available, both web-based and application-based. To find a client, do a
web search for "how do I find a usenet text client"
Find a new public Usenet server. The new client you choose will
likely have a default server or a set of curated options for you. If
not, to find a server, do a web search for "public NNTP servers."
Because Usenet is a distributed system, you do not need to migrate data.
All of the Usenet content you can access today on Google Groups should already be synced to the new server you choose. After you select a new
client and server, you can reselect the groups you’re interested in. %%%%%%%%
Mozilla's Thunderbird mail app and giganews.com as newsserver work well
for me.
On 2/8/24 5:47 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
On 09/02/2024 00:48, erik simpson wrote:
On 2/8/24 3:14 PM, Nick Matzke wrote:
Hi all,There's hope for us all. The following is copypasta from the
I was concerned to read this:
============
Effective February 22, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support new
Usenet content. Posting and subscribing will be disallowed, and new
content from Usenet peers will not appear. Viewing and searching of
historical data will still be supported as it is done today.
============
I suppose that the talk.origins group, like the creationism issue
generally, are not nearly as big as they were. And of course I hardly
post on newsgroups anymore (or much at all, blogging has also decline
compared to general fragmented/marketized social media chaos).
But: it would be nice if something continued. Do people have advice
/ ideas on the following?
1. What are modern news-readers / archives for Usenet, once Google
Groups stops doing it?
2. Is creating a talk.origins Google Group, which is purely a Google
Group rather than a usenet thing, a feasible option?
(Full disclosure, I still barely understand what usenet is/was, I was
not computer-aware until the mid 1990s.)
Cheers!
Nick Matzke
threatening message's "Learn more":
What do I need to do?
If you don't actively engage with Usenet content, you don't need to do
anything. Current Usenet users will need to do two things before
February 22, 2024 if they want to continue engaging with Usenet content: >>
%%%%%
Find a new Usenet client. Several free and paid alternatives are
available, both web-based and application-based. To find a client, do
a web search for "how do I find a usenet text client"
Find a new public Usenet server. The new client you choose will
likely have a default server or a set of curated options for you. If
not, to find a server, do a web search for "public NNTP servers."
Because Usenet is a distributed system, you do not need to migrate
data. All of the Usenet content you can access today on Google Groups
should already be synced to the new server you choose. After you
select a new client and server, you can reselect the groups you're
interested in.
%%%%%%%%
Mozilla's Thunderbird mail app and giganews.com as newsserver work
well for me.
I've switched to Thunderbird and a free
subscription to "Eternal September", both
a joke and a "news" server. The joke was
that Usenet used to see new naive participants
when colleges started each year, in September.
Then home internet access started to offer
Usenet, and if you had "AOL" then they
connected their own message service to Usenet.
An "eternal September" began.
Eternal September at <https://www.eternal-september.org>
lets you download messages since late 2013.
I suggest you don't do that. When I finish
reading new messages, it starts showing me
the oldest ones... from 2013.
You don't have to set up Thunderbird
for e-mail, to use it for Usenet.
You Don have to respect Eternsl September
user rules, such as "do not send spam".
I think Erik's message is written for
"Google Groups" users. Google Groups
exists and will continue as a separate
service, but it won't receive new messages
from Usenet or transmit messages to Usenet.
So it's not quite right to say that "If you
don't actively engage with Usenet content",
that you aren't affected. There will not be
New messages to read in talk.origins at Google.
I think thst one or more of talk.origins users
did previously set up their own separate groups
in Google Groups. Just to talk to themselves,
we assume. I can't speak for anyone else but
I will prefer to use the real talk.origins
on Usenet.
I too had problems with Eternal September. That's why I switched to
giganews even though it isn't free. Don't start reading at the
beginning. There's almost 2 million entries in TO and it bogs down the reader.
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
I too had problems with Eternal September. That's why I switched to giganews even though it isn't free. Don't start reading at the
beginning. There's almost 2 million entries in TO and it bogs down the reader.
Sort by date, and mark all but the last month as 'Read'
takes care of that,
Jan
On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 22:15:04 +0100
nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:[]
I too had problems with Eternal September. That's why I switched to
giganews even though it isn't free. Don't start reading at the
beginning. There's almost 2 million entries in TO and it bogs down the
reader.
Sort by date, and mark all but the last month as 'Read'
takes care of that,
Jan
But, but, then how will newcomers learn all the background on 'who said
what' in the fights from 10 or more years ago that are still on-going?
On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 22:15:04 +0100
nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
[]
I too had problems with Eternal September. That's why I switched to giganews even though it isn't free. Don't start reading at the
beginning. There's almost 2 million entries in TO and it bogs down the reader.
Sort by date, and mark all but the last month as 'Read'
takes care of that,
But, but, then how will newcomers learn all the background on 'who said
what' in the fights from 10 or more years ago that are still on-going?
On 2/10/24 1:33 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 22:15:04 +0100
nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:[]
I too had problems with Eternal September. That's why I switched to
giganews even though it isn't free. Don't start reading at the
beginning. There's almost 2 million entries in TO and it bogs down the >>> reader.
Sort by date, and mark all but the last month as 'Read'
takes care of that,
Jan
But, but, then how will newcomers learn all the background on 'who said what' in the fights from 10 or more years ago that are still on-going?
Not having any record of who said what ten years ago is better than
having such a record.
To add, my perception of the purpose
of talk.origins is that people who want
to argue creationism in other groups
that exist to discuss real science,
those people were to be told to come
here instead of there for that.
Another function, perhaps, is to protect
the general public from it, as well.
There is something of a "general public"
still on Usenet, but new members with and
without creationist beliefs are rare.
So what and where should an online
talk.origins as a public drain or sewer
be established? And is the need served?
How about an AI chat-bot?
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/10/24 1:33 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 22:15:04 +0100Not having any record of who said what ten years ago is better than
nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:[]
I too had problems with Eternal September. That's why I switched to
giganews even though it isn't free. Don't start reading at the
beginning. There's almost 2 million entries in TO and it bogs down the >>>>> reader.
Sort by date, and mark all but the last month as 'Read'
takes care of that,
Jan
But, but, then how will newcomers learn all the background on 'who said
what' in the fights from 10 or more years ago that are still on-going?
having such a record.
Nothing wrong with having a record, but why look at it?
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/10/24 1:33 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 22:15:04 +0100Not having any record of who said what ten years ago is better than
nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:[]
I too had problems with Eternal September. That's why I switched to
giganews even though it isn't free. Don't start reading at the
beginning. There's almost 2 million entries in TO and it bogs down the >> >>> reader.
Sort by date, and mark all but the last month as 'Read'
takes care of that,
Jan
But, but, then how will newcomers learn all the background on 'who said
what' in the fights from 10 or more years ago that are still on-going?
having such a record.
Nothing wrong with having a record, but why look at it?
To add, my perception of the purpose
of talk.origins is that people who want
to argue creationism in other groups
that exist to discuss real science,
those people were to be told to come
here instead of there for that.
Another function, perhaps, is to protect
the general public from it, as well.
There is something of a "general public"
still on Usenet, but new members with and
without creationist beliefs are rare.
So what and where should an online
talk.origins as a public drain or sewer
be established? And is the need served?
How about an AI chat-bot?
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 10:22:40 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder):
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/10/24 1:33 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 22:15:04 +0100Not having any record of who said what ten years ago is better than
nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:[]
I too had problems with Eternal September. That's why I switched to
giganews even though it isn't free. Don't start reading at the
beginning. There's almost 2 million entries in TO and it bogs down
the reader.
Sort by date, and mark all but the last month as 'Read'
takes care of that,
Jan
But, but, then how will newcomers learn all the background on 'who
said what' in the fights from 10 or more years ago that are still
on-going?
having such a record.
Nothing wrong with having a record, but why look at it?
No reason, obviously. But as long as there are those like
The Math Professor Who Shall Remain Nameless who obsesses
over every post ever made which in any way involve him, and
many which don't, and repost sections of them in exhaustive
(and exhausting) detail, I'll go along with Erik. "Get Over
It" by the Eagles comes to mind...
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 10:22:40 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder):
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:No reason, obviously. But as long as there are those like
On 2/10/24 1:33 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 22:15:04 +0100Not having any record of who said what ten years ago is better than
nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:[]
I too had problems with Eternal September. That's why I switched to >> >> >>> giganews even though it isn't free. Don't start reading at the
beginning. There's almost 2 million entries in TO and it bogs down >> >> >>> the reader.
Sort by date, and mark all but the last month as 'Read'
takes care of that,
Jan
But, but, then how will newcomers learn all the background on 'who
said what' in the fights from 10 or more years ago that are still
on-going?
having such a record.
Nothing wrong with having a record, but why look at it?
The Math Professor Who Shall Remain Nameless who obsesses
over every post ever made which in any way involve him, and
many which don't, and repost sections of them in exhaustive
(and exhausting) detail, I'll go along with Erik. "Get Over
It" by the Eagles comes to mind...
Still no reason not to have it, [1]
[1] I have used mine to see for example--
how long ago posters vanished forever.
I may use it again in a years time to estimate
how big the coming mass extinction really was.
On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 08:04:36 -0800, erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/12/24 5:49 AM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
On 09/02/2024 09:35, *Hemidactylus* wrote:Spam is just the internet equivalent of junk mail. Toss it in the trash
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/8/24 3:14 PM, Nick Matzke wrote:Was Google Groups’ demise because of this?:
Hi all,There's hope for us all. The following is copypasta from the
I was concerned to read this:
============
Effective February 22, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support new >>>>>> Usenet content. Posting and subscribing will be disallowed, and new >>>>>> content from Usenet peers will not appear. Viewing and searching of >>>>>> historical data will still be supported as it is done today.
============
I suppose that the talk.origins group, like the creationism issue
generally, are not nearly as big as they were. And of course I hardly >>>>>> post on newsgroups anymore (or much at all, blogging has also decline >>>>>> compared to general fragmented/marketized social media chaos).
But: it would be nice if something continued. Do people have advice / >>>>>> ideas on the following?
1. What are modern news-readers / archives for Usenet, once Google >>>>>> Groups stops doing it?
2. Is creating a talk.origins Google Group, which is purely a Google >>>>>> Group rather than a usenet thing, a feasible option?
(Full disclosure, I still barely understand what usenet is/was, I was >>>>>> not computer-aware until the mid 1990s.)
Cheers!
Nick Matzke
threatening message's "Learn more":
What do I need to do?
If you don’t actively engage with Usenet content, you don’t need to do
anything. Current Usenet users will need to do two things before
February 22, 2024 if they want to continue engaging with Usenet content: >>>>>
%%%%%
Find a new Usenet client. Several free and paid alternatives are >>>>> available, both web-based and application-based. To find a client, do a >>>>> web search for "how do I find a usenet text client"
Find a new public Usenet server. The new client you choose will >>>>> likely have a default server or a set of curated options for you. If >>>>> not, to find a server, do a web search for "public NNTP servers."
Because Usenet is a distributed system, you do not need to migrate data. >>>>> All of the Usenet content you can access today on Google Groups should >>>>> already be synced to the new server you choose. After you select a new >>>>> client and server, you can reselect the groups you’re interested in. >>>>> %%%%%%%%
Mozilla's Thunderbird mail app and giganews.com as newsserver work well >>>>> for me.
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/gi4TlIokEgY
posted 12-9-23
I have fantasised at length and in detail
about doing terrible things to the spammers.
Physically.
and forget it.
But you don't. Instead, you respond to some, if only to complain
about others responding to what you think forgettable. You likely do
that for the same reasons as those you complain about. If you think
bailing against the tide is pointless, you still act as if you
recognize the merits of bailing the boat you're standing on. How much
better it would be to stand on a more seaworthy ship than complaining
about others complaining about what you think is forgettable.
On 09/02/2024 09:35, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/8/24 3:14 PM, Nick Matzke wrote:Was Google Groups’ demise because of this?:
Hi all,There's hope for us all. The following is copypasta from the
I was concerned to read this:
============
Effective February 22, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support new
Usenet content. Posting and subscribing will be disallowed, and new
content from Usenet peers will not appear. Viewing and searching of
historical data will still be supported as it is done today.
============
I suppose that the talk.origins group, like the creationism issue
generally, are not nearly as big as they were. And of course I hardly
post on newsgroups anymore (or much at all, blogging has also decline
compared to general fragmented/marketized social media chaos).
But: it would be nice if something continued. Do people have advice / >>>> ideas on the following?
1. What are modern news-readers / archives for Usenet, once Google
Groups stops doing it?
2. Is creating a talk.origins Google Group, which is purely a Google
Group rather than a usenet thing, a feasible option?
(Full disclosure, I still barely understand what usenet is/was, I was
not computer-aware until the mid 1990s.)
Cheers!
Nick Matzke
threatening message's "Learn more":
What do I need to do?
If you don’t actively engage with Usenet content, you don’t need to do >>> anything. Current Usenet users will need to do two things before
February 22, 2024 if they want to continue engaging with Usenet content: >>>
%%%%%
Find a new Usenet client. Several free and paid alternatives are
available, both web-based and application-based. To find a client, do a
web search for "how do I find a usenet text client"
Find a new public Usenet server. The new client you choose will
likely have a default server or a set of curated options for you. If
not, to find a server, do a web search for "public NNTP servers."
Because Usenet is a distributed system, you do not need to migrate data. >>> All of the Usenet content you can access today on Google Groups should
already be synced to the new server you choose. After you select a new
client and server, you can reselect the groups you’re interested in.
%%%%%%%%
Mozilla's Thunderbird mail app and giganews.com as newsserver work well
for me.
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/gi4TlIokEgY
posted 12-9-23
I have fantasised at length and in detail
about doing terrible things to the spammers.
Physically.
On 2/13/24 1:32 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:It will be somewhat interesting to see who hangs around.
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 10:22:40 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder):
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:No reason, obviously. But as long as there are those like
On 2/10/24 1:33 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 22:15:04 +0100Not having any record of who said what ten years ago is better than
nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:[]
I too had problems with Eternal September. That's why I switched to >>>>>>>> giganews even though it isn't free. Don't start reading at the >>>>>>>> beginning. There's almost 2 million entries in TO and it bogs down >>>>>>>> the reader.
Sort by date, and mark all but the last month as 'Read'
takes care of that,
Jan
But, but, then how will newcomers learn all the background on 'who >>>>>> said what' in the fights from 10 or more years ago that are still
on-going?
having such a record.
Nothing wrong with having a record, but why look at it?
The Math Professor Who Shall Remain Nameless who obsesses
over every post ever made which in any way involve him, and
many which don't, and repost sections of them in exhaustive
(and exhausting) detail, I'll go along with Erik. "Get Over
It" by the Eagles comes to mind...
Still no reason not to have it, [1]
Jan
[1] I have used mine to see for example
how long ago posters vanished forever.
I may use it again in a years time to estimate
how big the coming mass extinction really was.
On 2/13/24 7:41 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:Do you recall the Canadian loon from Saskatoon who was convinced that
On 2/13/24 1:32 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:In retrospect I’m trying to recall who was our worst monster here over the >> years. Prawnster comes to mind, but Jabbers was pretty horrific too. There >> was that one weirdo that used to stalk Harshman who may have had multiple
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:It will be somewhat interesting to see who hangs around.
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 10:22:40 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder):
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:No reason, obviously. But as long as there are those like
On 2/10/24 1:33 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 22:15:04 +0100Not having any record of who said what ten years ago is better than >>>>>>> having such a record.
nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:[]
I too had problems with Eternal September. That's why I switched to >>>>>>>>>> giganews even though it isn't free. Don't start reading at the >>>>>>>>>> beginning. There's almost 2 million entries in TO and it bogs down >>>>>>>>>> the reader.
Sort by date, and mark all but the last month as 'Read'
takes care of that,
Jan
But, but, then how will newcomers learn all the background on 'who >>>>>>>> said what' in the fights from 10 or more years ago that are still >>>>>>>> on-going?
Nothing wrong with having a record, but why look at it?
The Math Professor Who Shall Remain Nameless who obsesses
over every post ever made which in any way involve him, and
many which don't, and repost sections of them in exhaustive
(and exhausting) detail, I'll go along with Erik. "Get Over
It" by the Eagles comes to mind...
Still no reason not to have it, [1]
Jan
[1] I have used mine to see for example
how long ago posters vanished forever.
I may use it again in a years time to estimate
how big the coming mass extinction really was.
nyms.
MI5 (or maybe it was Mi6? maybe both?) was surveilling him?
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/13/24 1:32 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:It will be somewhat interesting to see who hangs around.
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 10:22:40 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder):
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:No reason, obviously. But as long as there are those like
On 2/10/24 1:33 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 22:15:04 +0100Not having any record of who said what ten years ago is better than >>>>> having such a record.
nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:[]
I too had problems with Eternal September. That's why I switched to >>>>>>>> giganews even though it isn't free. Don't start reading at the >>>>>>>> beginning. There's almost 2 million entries in TO and it bogs down >>>>>>>> the reader.
Sort by date, and mark all but the last month as 'Read'
takes care of that,
Jan
But, but, then how will newcomers learn all the background on 'who >>>>>> said what' in the fights from 10 or more years ago that are still >>>>>> on-going?
Nothing wrong with having a record, but why look at it?
The Math Professor Who Shall Remain Nameless who obsesses
over every post ever made which in any way involve him, and
many which don't, and repost sections of them in exhaustive
(and exhausting) detail, I'll go along with Erik. "Get Over
It" by the Eagles comes to mind...
Still no reason not to have it, [1]
Jan
[1] I have used mine to see for example
how long ago posters vanished forever.
I may use it again in a years time to estimate
how big the coming mass extinction really was.
In retrospect I'm trying to recall who was our worst monster here over the years. Prawnster comes to mind, but Jabbers was pretty horrific too. There was that one weirdo that used to stalk Harshman who may have had multiple nyms.
My point here is simply that everybody likes to complain about others.
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:[Missing posters of yesteryear]
Do you recall the Canadian loon from Saskatoon who was convinced that
MI5 (or maybe it was Mi6? maybe both?) was surveilling him?
I recall someone we called MI5(?) guy. There was someone else who said he
was running from the Ukrainian mob. I think we called him vowel boy because he lacked consonants in his nym. And there was (M)adman.
On 2/14/24 4:09 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:Wilkens was a serious loss, as was Roger Shrubber.
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/13/24 1:32 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:In retrospect I'm trying to recall who was our worst monster here over the >>> years. Prawnster comes to mind, but Jabbers was pretty horrific too. There >>> was that one weirdo that used to stalk Harshman who may have had multiple >>> nyms.
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:It will be somewhat interesting to see who hangs around.
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 10:22:40 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder):
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:No reason, obviously. But as long as there are those like
On 2/10/24 1:33 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 22:15:04 +0100Not having any record of who said what ten years ago is better than >>>>>>>> having such a record.
nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:[]
I too had problems with Eternal September. That's why I switched to >>>>>>>>>>> giganews even though it isn't free. Don't start reading at the >>>>>>>>>>> beginning. There's almost 2 million entries in TO and it bogs down >>>>>>>>>>> the reader.
Sort by date, and mark all but the last month as 'Read'
takes care of that,
Jan
But, but, then how will newcomers learn all the background on 'who >>>>>>>>> said what' in the fights from 10 or more years ago that are still >>>>>>>>> on-going?
Nothing wrong with having a record, but why look at it?
The Math Professor Who Shall Remain Nameless who obsesses
over every post ever made which in any way involve him, and
many which don't, and repost sections of them in exhaustive
(and exhausting) detail, I'll go along with Erik. "Get Over
It" by the Eagles comes to mind...
Still no reason not to have it, [1]
Jan
[1] I have used mine to see for example
how long ago posters vanished forever.
I may use it again in a years time to estimate
how big the coming mass extinction really was.
Or conversely, who was the greatest loss.
From memory, I think it was our philosopher, John S. Wilkins,
of 'Species book' fame.
John, if you are seeing this, please come back,
Jan
On 2/14/24 7:54 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:As our President, I was trying to think of his name. I think he just
On 2/14/24 4:09 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:And Richard Norman.
*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:Wilkens was a serious loss, as was Roger Shrubber.
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/13/24 1:32 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:In retrospect I'm trying to recall who was our worst monster here over the
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:It will be somewhat interesting to see who hangs around.
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 10:22:40 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder):
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:No reason, obviously. But as long as there are those like
On 2/10/24 1:33 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 22:15:04 +0100Not having any record of who said what ten years ago is better than >>>>>>>>>> having such a record.
nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:[]
I too had problems with Eternal September. That's why I switched to
giganews even though it isn't free. Don't start reading at the >>>>>>>>>>>>> beginning. There's almost 2 million entries in TO and it bogs down
the reader.
Sort by date, and mark all but the last month as 'Read' >>>>>>>>>>>> takes care of that,
Jan
But, but, then how will newcomers learn all the background on 'who >>>>>>>>>>> said what' in the fights from 10 or more years ago that are still >>>>>>>>>>> on-going?
Nothing wrong with having a record, but why look at it?
The Math Professor Who Shall Remain Nameless who obsesses
over every post ever made which in any way involve him, and
many which don't, and repost sections of them in exhaustive
(and exhausting) detail, I'll go along with Erik. "Get Over
It" by the Eagles comes to mind...
Still no reason not to have it, [1]
Jan
[1] I have used mine to see for example
how long ago posters vanished forever.
I may use it again in a years time to estimate
how big the coming mass extinction really was.
years. Prawnster comes to mind, but Jabbers was pretty horrific too. There
was that one weirdo that used to stalk Harshman who may have had multiple >>>>> nyms.
Or conversely, who was the greatest loss.
From memory, I think it was our philosopher, John S. Wilkins,
of 'Species book' fame.
John, if you are seeing this, please come back,
Jan
left this sandbox for pleasanter prospects. On the other hand, I don't
miss our own "complexity theory" guy in the least.
*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/13/24 1:32 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:In retrospect I'm trying to recall who was our worst monster here over the >> years. Prawnster comes to mind, but Jabbers was pretty horrific too. There >> was that one weirdo that used to stalk Harshman who may have had multiple
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:It will be somewhat interesting to see who hangs around.
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 10:22:40 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder):
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:No reason, obviously. But as long as there are those like
On 2/10/24 1:33 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 22:15:04 +0100Not having any record of who said what ten years ago is better than >>>>>>> having such a record.
nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:[]
I too had problems with Eternal September. That's why I switched to >>>>>>>>>> giganews even though it isn't free. Don't start reading at the >>>>>>>>>> beginning. There's almost 2 million entries in TO and it bogs down >>>>>>>>>> the reader.
Sort by date, and mark all but the last month as 'Read'
takes care of that,
Jan
But, but, then how will newcomers learn all the background on 'who >>>>>>>> said what' in the fights from 10 or more years ago that are still >>>>>>>> on-going?
Nothing wrong with having a record, but why look at it?
The Math Professor Who Shall Remain Nameless who obsesses
over every post ever made which in any way involve him, and
many which don't, and repost sections of them in exhaustive
(and exhausting) detail, I'll go along with Erik. "Get Over
It" by the Eagles comes to mind...
Still no reason not to have it, [1]
Jan
[1] I have used mine to see for example
how long ago posters vanished forever.
I may use it again in a years time to estimate
how big the coming mass extinction really was.
nyms.
Or conversely, who was the greatest loss.
From memory, I think it was our philosopher, John S. Wilkins,
of 'Species book' fame.
John, if you are seeing this, please come back,
I see talk.origins as a home for arguing
creationism and evolution.
Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> writes:
I see talk.origins as a home for arguing
creationism and evolution.
Does it include the origin of the universe?
On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 17:42:09 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> writes:
I see talk.origins as a home for arguing creationism and evolution.
Does it include the origin of the universe?
In practice, TO is open to arguing any science topic which
pseudoskeptics have glommed onto. That would include the origin of
the universe, flat-earth, anti-vaxxers, and extraterrestrial visitors.
On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 13:08:49 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 17:42:09 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> writes:
I see talk.origins as a home for arguing creationism and
evolution.
Does it include the origin of the universe?
In practice, TO is open to arguing any science topic which
pseudoskeptics have glommed onto. That would include the origin of
the universe, flat-earth, anti-vaxxers, and extraterrestrial
visitors.
I think humans have evolved to assume everything has an origin because >>everything they come across on earth has an origin. But whether the >>universe has an origin is rather doubtful, in my opinion.
As you say, that's your personal opinion. Do you have a basis for it?
On 2/17/24 5:08 AM, Richmond wrote:
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 17:42:09 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> writes:
I see talk.origins as a home for arguing creationism and evolution.
Does it include the origin of the universe?
In practice, TO is open to arguing any science topic which
pseudoskeptics have glommed onto. That would include the origin of
the universe, flat-earth, anti-vaxxers, and extraterrestrial visitors.
I think humans have evolved to assume everything has an origin because everything they come across on earth has an origin. But whether the universe has an origin is rather doubtful, in my opinion.
As you've probably already noticed, hardly anything is completely
off-topic in TO. The origin of the universe, or non-origin if you
prefer has been argued here extensively. There's considereable
observational evidence that something pretty dramatic happened ~ 13.8
GYA. Before that, if "before" has actual meaning, we know nothing.
On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 08:31:12 -0800
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/17/24 5:08 AM, Richmond wrote:
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 17:42:09 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote: >>
Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> writes:
Does it include the origin of the universe?
I see talk.origins as a home for arguing creationism and evolution. >>>
In practice, TO is open to arguing any science topic which
pseudoskeptics have glommed onto. That would include the origin of
the universe, flat-earth, anti-vaxxers, and extraterrestrial visitors.
I think humans have evolved to assume everything has an origin because everything they come across on earth has an origin. But whether the universe has an origin is rather doubtful, in my opinion.
As you've probably already noticed, hardly anything is completely
off-topic in TO. The origin of the universe, or non-origin if you
prefer has been argued here extensively. There's considereable observational evidence that something pretty dramatic happened ~ 13.8
GYA. Before that, if "before" has actual meaning, we know nothing.
Yeahbut there are galaxies out there nearly that far away.
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 13:08:49 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 17:42:09 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote: >>>
Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> writes:
I see talk.origins as a home for arguing creationism and
evolution.
Does it include the origin of the universe?
In practice, TO is open to arguing any science topic which
pseudoskeptics have glommed onto. That would include the origin of
the universe, flat-earth, anti-vaxxers, and extraterrestrial
visitors.
I think humans have evolved to assume everything has an origin because >>everything they come across on earth has an origin. But whether the >>universe has an origin is rather doubtful, in my opinion.
As you say, that's your personal opinion. Do you have a basis for it?
According to "Emerging Spacetime" theory, space and time are not
fundamental attributes of the universe, but emerging spacetime proposes
they arise from deeper, more fundamental structures and processes.
Origin strikes me as being temporal, in this context, if the origin of
the universe is at some point in time, what was going on before that,
and why did it change? Although origin could mean something else, like
the origin of a river.
So if time emerged from something more fundamental, then there cannot
have been a beginning.
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 13:08:49 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 17:42:09 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote: >> >>>
Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> writes:
I see talk.origins as a home for arguing creationism and
evolution.
Does it include the origin of the universe?
In practice, TO is open to arguing any science topic which
pseudoskeptics have glommed onto. That would include the origin of
the universe, flat-earth, anti-vaxxers, and extraterrestrial
visitors.
I think humans have evolved to assume everything has an origin because
everything they come across on earth has an origin. But whether the
universe has an origin is rather doubtful, in my opinion.
As you say, that's your personal opinion. Do you have a basis for it?
According to "Emerging Spacetime" theory, space and time are not
fundamental attributes of the universe, but emerging spacetime proposes
they arise from deeper, more fundamental structures and processes.
Origin strikes me as being temporal, in this context, if the origin of
the universe is at some point in time, what was going on before that,
and why did it change? Although origin could mean something else, like
the origin of a river.
So if time emerged from something more fundamental, then there cannot
have been a beginning.
???
Your 'more fundamental thing' can have a beginning too,
nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) writes:
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 13:08:49 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote: >>> >According to "Emerging Spacetime" theory, space and time are not
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 17:42:09 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote: >>> >>>
Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> writes:
I see talk.origins as a home for arguing creationism and
evolution.
Does it include the origin of the universe?
In practice, TO is open to arguing any science topic which
pseudoskeptics have glommed onto. That would include the origin of
the universe, flat-earth, anti-vaxxers, and extraterrestrial
visitors.
I think humans have evolved to assume everything has an origin because >>> >>everything they come across on earth has an origin. But whether the
universe has an origin is rather doubtful, in my opinion.
As you say, that's your personal opinion. Do you have a basis for it? >>>
fundamental attributes of the universe, but emerging spacetime proposes
they arise from deeper, more fundamental structures and processes.
Origin strikes me as being temporal, in this context, if the origin of
the universe is at some point in time, what was going on before that,
and why did it change? Although origin could mean something else, like
the origin of a river.
So if time emerged from something more fundamental, then there cannot
have been a beginning.
???
Your 'more fundamental thing' can have a beginning too,
How can something begin when there is no time?
On 16/02/2024 17:42, Richmond wrote:
Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> writes:
I see talk.origins as a home for arguing
creationism and evolution.
Does it include the origin of the universe?
Officially no, practically yes. Or rather,
the evolution of the universe. Or, both.
I treat "creationism" as meaning only the
doctrine, which I do not believe, that
living things are what they are because God -
or someone or ones or things like God -
created them, without evolution happening.
Or with some evolution.
A chart was printed in some Christian bibles
showing that God made everything in the year
4004 B.C. Mostly, it is supposed to have not
changed much since then. Many Christians find
scientific evidence more satisfactory than
the chart.
On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 19:49:05 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) writes:
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 13:08:49 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote: >>>> >According to "Emerging Spacetime" theory, space and time are not
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 17:42:09 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote: >>>> >>>
Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> writes:
I see talk.origins as a home for arguing creationism and
evolution.
Does it include the origin of the universe?
In practice, TO is open to arguing any science topic which
pseudoskeptics have glommed onto. That would include the origin of >>>> >>> the universe, flat-earth, anti-vaxxers, and extraterrestrial
visitors.
I think humans have evolved to assume everything has an origin because >>>> >>everything they come across on earth has an origin. But whether the
universe has an origin is rather doubtful, in my opinion.
As you say, that's your personal opinion. Do you have a basis for it? >>>>
fundamental attributes of the universe, but emerging spacetime proposes >>>> they arise from deeper, more fundamental structures and processes.
Origin strikes me as being temporal, in this context, if the origin of >>>> the universe is at some point in time, what was going on before that,
and why did it change? Although origin could mean something else, like >>>> the origin of a river.
So if time emerged from something more fundamental, then there cannot
have been a beginning.
???
Your 'more fundamental thing' can have a beginning too,
How can something begin when there is no time?
My impression is your questions and comments describe the stereotype
origin paradox "what came first, chicken or egg?" My experience is
these are false paradoxes based on false dichotomies. Just as what
laid the first egg was not a chicken, it's reasonable to presume our
universe originated from something different from this universe. So
while physics can describe our universe's origin, what came before is
beyond its scope at this time, possibly in principle.
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 19:49:05 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) writes:
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 13:08:49 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>> >According to "Emerging Spacetime" theory, space and time are not
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 17:42:09 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> writes:
I see talk.origins as a home for arguing creationism and
evolution.
Does it include the origin of the universe?
In practice, TO is open to arguing any science topic which
pseudoskeptics have glommed onto. That would include the origin of >>>>> >>> the universe, flat-earth, anti-vaxxers, and extraterrestrial
visitors.
I think humans have evolved to assume everything has an origin because >>>>> >>everything they come across on earth has an origin. But whether the >>>>> >>universe has an origin is rather doubtful, in my opinion.
As you say, that's your personal opinion. Do you have a basis for it? >>>>>
fundamental attributes of the universe, but emerging spacetime proposes >>>>> they arise from deeper, more fundamental structures and processes.
Origin strikes me as being temporal, in this context, if the origin of >>>>> the universe is at some point in time, what was going on before that, >>>>> and why did it change? Although origin could mean something else, like >>>>> the origin of a river.
So if time emerged from something more fundamental, then there cannot >>>>> have been a beginning.
???
Your 'more fundamental thing' can have a beginning too,
How can something begin when there is no time?
My impression is your questions and comments describe the stereotype
origin paradox "what came first, chicken or egg?" My experience is
these are false paradoxes based on false dichotomies. Just as what
laid the first egg was not a chicken, it's reasonable to presume our
universe originated from something different from this universe. So
while physics can describe our universe's origin, what came before is
beyond its scope at this time, possibly in principle.
No, it simply follows from what I was saying before about the "emerging >spacetime" theory, "So if time emerged from something more fundamental,
then there cannot have been a beginning."
The more fundamental thing from which time emerged did not include time,
time wasn't there, so it didn't have a beginning, except in the way a
piece of string has a beginning, but that would still be there.
'Beginning' in this context at least, is temporal.
On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 14:14:12 +0000, the following appearedSo, no reply? OK.
in talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>:
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:Do you fail to see that your statement contains an inherent
On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 19:49:05 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) writes:
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 13:08:49 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>>> >According to "Emerging Spacetime" theory, space and time are not
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 17:42:09 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> writes:
I see talk.origins as a home for arguing creationism and
evolution.
Does it include the origin of the universe?
In practice, TO is open to arguing any science topic which
pseudoskeptics have glommed onto. That would include the origin of >>>>>> >>> the universe, flat-earth, anti-vaxxers, and extraterrestrial
visitors.
I think humans have evolved to assume everything has an origin because >>>>>> >>everything they come across on earth has an origin. But whether the >>>>>> >>universe has an origin is rather doubtful, in my opinion.
As you say, that's your personal opinion. Do you have a basis for it? >>>>>>
fundamental attributes of the universe, but emerging spacetime proposes >>>>>> they arise from deeper, more fundamental structures and processes. >>>>>>
Origin strikes me as being temporal, in this context, if the origin of >>>>>> the universe is at some point in time, what was going on before that, >>>>>> and why did it change? Although origin could mean something else, like >>>>>> the origin of a river.
So if time emerged from something more fundamental, then there cannot >>>>>> have been a beginning.
???
Your 'more fundamental thing' can have a beginning too,
How can something begin when there is no time?
My impression is your questions and comments describe the stereotype
origin paradox "what came first, chicken or egg?" My experience is
these are false paradoxes based on false dichotomies. Just as what
laid the first egg was not a chicken, it's reasonable to presume our
universe originated from something different from this universe. So
while physics can describe our universe's origin, what came before is
beyond its scope at this time, possibly in principle.
No, it simply follows from what I was saying before about the "emerging >>spacetime" theory, "So if time emerged from something more fundamental, >>then there cannot have been a beginning."
The more fundamental thing from which time emerged did not include time, >>time wasn't there, so it didn't have a beginning, except in the way a
piece of string has a beginning, but that would still be there.
'Beginning' in this context at least, is temporal.
contradiction, in that duration, however slight, is implicit
in the phrase "emerged from". And since duration implies
time, there *must* be time, or something quite similar,
involved. Or is this equivalent to "It's been discovered
that the Iliad was not written by Homer, but by another
Greek with the same name."?
So duration is zero (since there is zero time in which
duration exists). And if something has zero duration (exists
for no time at all), can we not say that it also has zero
existence?
Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> writes:
I see talk.origins as a home for arguing
creationism and evolution.
Does it include the origin of the universe?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 485 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 132:17:39 |
| Calls: | 9,655 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 13,707 |
| Messages: | 6,166,639 |