Alternatives to the spam and "nutters" found here?

AMATEUR ASTRONOMY ONLINE
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/a...tronomyonline/

BINOCULAR ASTRONOMY
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/binocularastronomy/

COMETS MAILING LIST
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/comets-ml/

DEEP SKY IMAGER
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Deep-Sky-Imager/

LUNAR OBSERVING
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/lunar-observing/

NEW CCD ASTRONOMY
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ccd-newastro/

OUTER SOLAR SYATEM MAILING LIST
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/jupiter_list/

STARRYNIGHTS (Observing reports and questions)
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/starrynights/

TALKING TELESCOPES
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/telescopes/


Martin Nicholson
Daventry, UK

Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 08:08:25 -0700 (PDT), ukastronomy
wrote:

(snip)

Martin Nicholson
Daventry, UK

The web sites may be spam free but it takes ages to check them out.
Usenet is far more efficient, even allowing for a bit of spam.

Steve


I agree and the splitting into lots of groups just dilutes the info.
Arrange to copy all of the web groups here and the spam/nutter to info
ratio would be much better.
mikej

On 5 Jul, 11:02, Mike James wrote:
Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 08:08:25 -0700 (PDT), ukastronomy
wrote:

(snip)

Martin Nicholson
Daventry, UK

The web sites may be spam free but it takes ages to check them out.
Usenet is far more efficient, even allowing for a bit of spam.

Steve

I agree and the splitting into lots of groups just dilutes the info.
Arrange to copy all of the web groups here and the spam/nutter to info
ratio would be much better.
mikej

The fact is that most of the more active UK based amateur astronomers
do not read or post to uk.sci.astronomy.

If you want to read what these people have to say you have no choice
but to subscribe to the groups they have chosen to use. Wanting them
to change from their current spam free environment to uk.sci.astronomy
where unrestricted access is given to the "nutters" is not going to
happen.

Martin Nicholson
Daventry, UK

On Jun 30, 5:08*pm, ukastronomy
wrote:
AMATEUR ASTRONOMY ONLINEhttp://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/amateurastronomyonline/
snip

Martin Nicholson
Daventry, UK

The linear threads of Yahoo groups are not remotely conducive to the
free exchange of information in a normal conversational form. One
person can block all new threads if they choose to monopolise a Yahoo
group. (and many do)

The new EU suggestion of a rule for registration of all email users is
unlikely to dent the spammers and nutters and unlikely to find favour
with many users. It could also be directly construed as reducing the
privacy and freedoms of expression of the majority of users. Anonymity
has its price. Only the individual can weigh the intrinsic value of
that freedom in response to most of the world's governments being
corrupt and vicious dictatorships.

It would help if it was made compulsory for ISPs to block spam. Making
Usenet cross posting impossible would only help slightly with the
serial nutters. Add compulsory firewall and antivirus software on all
computers and life would be so much more pleasant online.
Unfortunately one cannot so easily legislate for the greedy, the lazy,
the downright stupid, the perverted, the criminally insane and the
village idiots. If the big players on the internet weren't all corrupt
sharks with neo-nazi business models a lot of day to day problems
would vanish overnight. For example: What's the point in Google
providing a Usenet service if it never polices its own "Google
Groups"? Thereby denying users of its services a cleaned-up or family
viewing version of their favourite Usenet group. Monopoly always has
its price and monopolies are far too common where the Internet is
concerned. Just imagine if Microsoft had been forced to protect its
ramshackle software from the bandits right from the very start? If all
of us were forced to drive the same car and one key fitted all there'd
be total chaos. Bill Gates built a lot of Trabants and used only one
key.

It is interesting how quickly posting to this group attracts anonymous
(but still clearly identifiable!) hate mail.

I really do have to wonder why John Greaves holds such strong views on
aspects of amateur astronomy where he has no history of active
involvement or indeed why he regards publishing material in magazines
or on web sites as “self-aggrandisement” and not publishing material
in magazines or on web sites as evidence of “low productivity”.