🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 10:10:24 -0500, Spalls Hurgenson
<spallsh...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Back at Usenet's height, I checked it numerous times per day, probably
>along the number of times people check Facebook today. It was really
>the only way to keep up with discussions.
>
>As Usenet usage dwindled, I restricted myself to checking twice a day
>- before and after work - so I would actually find something
>worthwhile to read.
>
>These days I'm down to once a day - it's part of my morning ritual:
>wake up, brush teeth, drink coffee, check usenet, go to work. But I
>still make it a point to check at least once every day.
>
>But given the declining number of comments in this newsgroup, I figure
>that most aren't that regular. 
>
>So how often do you check Usenet these days?
>
>Just curious.
>

Just here and maybe once a week. By habit more than anything else and
not even sure why... I haven't played a PC game since June.

On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 10:10:24 -0500, Spalls Hurgenson
<spallsh...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Back at Usenet's height, I checked it numerous times per day, probably
>along the number of times people check Facebook today. It was really
>the only way to keep up with discussions.
>
>As Usenet usage dwindled, I restricted myself to checking twice a day
>- before and after work - so I would actually find something
>worthwhile to read.
>
>These days I'm down to once a day - it's part of my morning ritual:
>wake up, brush teeth, drink coffee, check usenet, go to work. But I
>still make it a point to check at least once every day.
>
>But given the declining number of comments in this newsgroup, I figure
>that most aren't that regular. 
>
>So how often do you check Usenet these days?
>
>Just curious.

I actually typically check this NG at least once every 2-3 days,
posting has gotten far less regular, but then again that is a also a
reflection of my gaming habits.

However, when I say check I mean I just check for new messages, and
depending on what I see (I don't see them all due to kill filters), it
is not uncommon for me to quickly scan the message for something of
interest, often at a rate of only milliseconds per message, and if
something doesn't scream out for an unsolicted RinRant(tm) :), or if
there are no messages at all, then I'm usually in and out of the
reader very quickly.

I think part of the reason is that the older I get, the more I realize
life is too short, and the number of things I want or need to do that
are not gaming-related seems to expand rather than contract.  So, I
spend less time gaming experimentally, or reading/writing about games,
in order to free up time for other things.

It doesn't mean I don't play games anymore, I do.  Lately I've been
playing a little Dying Light - The Following (The Following is DLC
that turns it into kind of a Far Cry like game).  Gaming time is
definitely less than it used to be though.

Your post came with interesting timing, because I was recently
thinking about the ever-diminishing volume of posts in this NG as well
as my own diminishing participation.  I hope the NG doesn't die
completely.  I'll probably keep checking back and occasionally posting
as long as there's reason to do so.

And, for the record, despite all the times I've needled you about one
thing or the other, I do recognize how much you've contributed here
and appreciate your efforts.  I'm guessing traffic would have dwindled
off much sooner if it weren't for your recurring participation.

Spalls Hurgenson <spallsh...@gmail.com> wrote in 
news:s51s8cp28j4mps...@4ax.com:

> 
> So how often do you check Usenet these days?
> 
> Just curious.
> 
> 

Once a day, with coffee.

Mark.

-- 
Clotho, Lachesis, Atropos         --        the only sysadmins that matter

>So how often do you check Usenet these days?

    Once a day, for new posts.  I only frequent one other gaming-related 
forum, and will keep it that way for the forseeable future.  No migrating 
forums to try to follow the herd for me, that way lies madness.  PC gaming 
has never been bigger or richer, with near instant access to 30yrs of 
titles, and I'm mostly happy with being console-less (except for the very 
few big exclusives), though I like reading any game-related posts, console 
or no (not much point subdividing them now any longer, with the major 
consoles in fact being pc architectures).

rms

On 1/29/2017 7:10 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>
> So how often do you check Usenet these days?
>
> Just curious.
>
Usually at least twice a day, once in the morning like you described and 
once in the evening.  I work remotely from home and when things are slow 
at work I'll check more often.

-- 
Running the rec.arts.TV Channels Watched Survey.
Winter 2016 survey began Dec 01 and will end Feb 28

On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 10:10:24 -0500, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote: 

>Back at Usenet's height, I checked it numerous times per day, probably
>along the number of times people check Facebook today. It was really
>the only way to keep up with discussions.
>
>As Usenet usage dwindled, I restricted myself to checking twice a day
>- before and after work - so I would actually find something
>worthwhile to read.
>
>These days I'm down to once a day - it's part of my morning ritual:
>wake up, brush teeth, drink coffee, check usenet, go to work. But I
>still make it a point to check at least once every day.
>
>But given the declining number of comments in this newsgroup, I figure
>that most aren't that regular. 
>
>So how often do you check Usenet these days?
>
>Just curious.
>
Daily. Only a few groups left worth checking though.

-- 
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

Spalls Hurgenson  <spallsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Back at Usenet's height, I checked it numerous times per day, probably
>along the number of times people check Facebook today. It was really
>the only way to keep up with discussions.
...
>So how often do you check Usenet these days?

Several times a day just like I used to.  Old habits are hard to break,
I guess.

					Ross Ridge

-- 
 l/  //	  Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo]  rri...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/  http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~rridge/ 
 db  //	  

On 2017-01-29, Spalls Hurgenson <spallsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So how often do you check Usenet these days?

Weekdays maybe 10 times a day, weekends once a day.

-- 
-Toby
Add the word afiduluminag to the subject to circumvent my email filters.

Spalls Hurgenson <spallsh...@gmail.com> writes:

> So how often do you check Usenet these days?

Most weekdays, whenever I have some time. Rarely on weekends.

On 1/29/2017 10:10 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> Back at Usenet's height, I checked it numerous times per day, probably
> along the number of times people check Facebook today. It was really
> the only way to keep up with discussions.
>
> As Usenet usage dwindled, I restricted myself to checking twice a day
> - before and after work - so I would actually find something
> worthwhile to read.
>
> These days I'm down to once a day - it's part of my morning ritual:
> wake up, brush teeth, drink coffee, check usenet, go to work. But I
> still make it a point to check at least once every day.
>
> But given the declining number of comments in this newsgroup, I figure
> that most aren't that regular.
>
> So how often do you check Usenet these days?
>
> Just curious.
>
>

I check in first thing in the morning and then every time I use the PC 
throughout the day.

Sometimes I actually find something of value in the Windows groups by 
accident, but I enjoy games on Usenet a lot, but wish .rpg was still as 
active as it used to be.

Diane

On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 06:36:41 -0500, DMP <D...@mungemaid.com> wrote:

>> So how often do you check Usenet these days?
>> Just curious.

Usually, about or so, every other day, except if I have started
a thread - at those (admitted, rather rare incidents) 
I may keep the feed open in the background constantly
to allow me as rapid response as possible.

Almost daily.


Spalls Hurgenson <spallsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Back at Usenet's height, I checked it numerous times per day, probably
> along the number of times people check Facebook today. It was really
> the only way to keep up with discussions.

> As Usenet usage dwindled, I restricted myself to checking twice a day
> - before and after work - so I would actually find something
> worthwhile to read.

> These days I'm down to once a day - it's part of my morning ritual:
> wake up, brush teeth, drink coffee, check usenet, go to work. But I
> still make it a point to check at least once every day.

> But given the declining number of comments in this newsgroup, I figure
> that most aren't that regular. 

> So how often do you check Usenet these days?

> Just curious.
-- 
Happy Chinese New Year (Fire Rooster)!
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
  /\___/\   Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.home.dhs.org (Personal Web Site)
 / /\ /\ \                 Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o   o| |
   \ _ /    Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail privately. If credit-
    ( )     ing, then please kindly use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.

Ross Ridge <rri...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> Spalls Hurgenson  <spallsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Back at Usenet's height, I checked it numerous times per day, probably
> >along the number of times people check Facebook today. It was really
> >the only way to keep up with discussions.
> ...
> >So how often do you check Usenet these days?

> Several times a day just like I used to.  Old habits are hard to break,
> I guess.

Ditto.
-- 
Happy Chinese New Year (Fire Rooster)!
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
  /\___/\   Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.home.dhs.org (Personal Web Site)
 / /\ /\ \                 Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o   o| |
   \ _ /    Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail privately. If credit-
    ( )     ing, then please kindly use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.

Rudi <ru...@iki.fi> wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 06:36:41 -0500, DMP <D...@mungemaid.com> wrote:

> >> So how often do you check Usenet these days?
> >> Just curious.

> Usually, about or so, every other day, except if I have started
> a thread - at those (admitted, rather rare incidents) 
> I may keep the feed open in the background constantly
> to allow me as rapid response as possible.

Do you have an automated refresh checker or something? I have to check 
manually in Tin, Pan, and SeaMonke's newsreaders.
-- 
Happy Chinese New Year (Fire Rooster)!
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
  /\___/\   Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.home.dhs.org (Personal Web Site)
 / /\ /\ \                 Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o   o| |
   \ _ /    Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail privately. If credit-
    ( )     ing, then please kindly use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.

On 1/29/2017 7:10 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

> So how often do you check Usenet these days?
>

Usually on weekdays if I remember, so maybe every other day except 
weekends.  Unless I have something to ask or say, or a problem I could 
use help with

I especially try to get on for the month-end postings.

This is the only group I have that's still active.

- Justisaur

30.1.2017, 19.59, Ant kirjoitti:

> Do you have an automated refresh checker or something? I have to check
> manually in Tin, Pan, and SeaMonke's newsreaders.

Nope. I use Forte Agent for news, and that software always requires a
manual refresh.

However as I pointed out, I keep it active only on those occasions
that I am waiting for replys - normally it is all in one session.

Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> Back at Usenet's height, I checked it numerous times per day, probably
> along the number of times people check Facebook today. It was really
> the only way to keep up with discussions.
> So how often do you check Usenet these days?

That depends on how you define "you Usenet" or "check Usenet".  :-)

On the poor side of the digital divide, offline reading (of Usenet 
as well as other NNTP based forums) is almost a necessity.  In 
service of that mode, I download new Usenet articles almost every 
time that I have access to the 'net.

But I often don't access the 'net for several days at a time - for a 
variety of reasons.  During those periods, sometimes I read 
previously downloaded articles every day.

Like Rudi, when I have posted something, I try to check for 
responses at least once a day.  So sometimes I have to plan ahead 
before I post - to make sure that I will be able to access the 'net 
often enough to see any responses.

That said, I spend less time reading Usenet than I do reading some 
newsgroups on news.grc.com.  IIRC, I heard about the activity in 
this newsgroup (csipg.action) in a post on the grc news server.

And I feel like I have barely scratched the surface of all the gmane 
and gwene newsgroups on the gmane server.

To me, perhaps the most interesting form of Usenet is the time 
machine that is the olduse.net server.

-- 
Eddie

Spalls Hurgenson <spallsh...@gmail.com> looked up from reading the
entrails of the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs
say:

>Back at Usenet's height, I checked it numerous times per day, probably
>along the number of times people check Facebook today. It was really
>the only way to keep up with discussions.
>
>As Usenet usage dwindled, I restricted myself to checking twice a day
>- before and after work - so I would actually find something
>worthwhile to read.
>
>These days I'm down to once a day - it's part of my morning ritual:
>wake up, brush teeth, drink coffee, check usenet, go to work. But I
>still make it a point to check at least once every day.
>
>But given the declining number of comments in this newsgroup, I figure
>that most aren't that regular. 
>
>So how often do you check Usenet these days?

Normally once a day in the morning while I have my coffee.

Since I just started playing Fallout4, I missed the last day or so.

Xocyll
-- 
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of 
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably, 
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So 
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr 

Rudi <ru...@iki.fi> wrote:
> 30.1.2017, 19.59, Ant kirjoitti:

> > Do you have an automated refresh checker or something? I have to check
> > manually in Tin, Pan, and SeaMonke's newsreaders.

> Nope. I use Forte Agent for news, and that software always requires a
> manual refresh.

> However as I pointed out, I keep it active only on those occasions
> that I am waiting for replys - normally it is all in one session.

Ah. I don't like to keep programs open to keep checking. :)
-- 
Happy Chinese New Year (Fire Rooster)!
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
  /\___/\   Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.home.dhs.org (Personal Web Site)
 / /\ /\ \                 Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o   o| |
   \ _ /    Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail privately. If credit-
    ( )     ing, then please kindly use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.

Rudi <ru...@iki.fi> looked up from reading the entrails of the porn
spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs say:

>30.1.2017, 19.59, Ant kirjoitti:
>
>> Do you have an automated refresh checker or something? I have to check
>> manually in Tin, Pan, and SeaMonke's newsreaders.
>
>Nope. I use Forte Agent for news, and that software always requires a
>manual refresh.

It's a curious thing about agent;
Usenet has to be manually refreshed, but if you use it for e-mail, that
can be set to check as often as you want automatically.

Makes you wonder why the usenet reader part never got the same
functionality.

Xocyll
-- 
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of 
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably, 
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So 
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr 

On 2017-02-01, Xocyll <Xoc...@gmx.com> wrote:
> Rudi <ru...@iki.fi> looked up from reading the entrails of the porn
> spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>
>>30.1.2017, 19.59, Ant kirjoitti:
>>
>>> Do you have an automated refresh checker or something? I have to check
>>> manually in Tin, Pan, and SeaMonke's newsreaders.
>>
>>Nope. I use Forte Agent for news, and that software always requires a
>>manual refresh.
>
> It's a curious thing about agent;
> Usenet has to be manually refreshed, but if you use it for e-mail, that
> can be set to check as often as you want automatically.
>
> Makes you wonder why the usenet reader part never got the same
> functionality.

I guess polling your own email server frequently is your own business.
Polling a shared usenet server might be seen as rude.

-- 
-Toby
Add the word afiduluminag to the subject to circumvent my email filters.

Toby Newman <goo...@asktoby.com> looked up from reading the entrails of
the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs say:

>On 2017-02-01, Xocyll <Xoc...@gmx.com> wrote:
>> Rudi <ru...@iki.fi> looked up from reading the entrails of the porn
>> spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>>
>>>30.1.2017, 19.59, Ant kirjoitti:
>>>
>>>> Do you have an automated refresh checker or something? I have to check
>>>> manually in Tin, Pan, and SeaMonke's newsreaders.
>>>
>>>Nope. I use Forte Agent for news, and that software always requires a
>>>manual refresh.
>>
>> It's a curious thing about agent;
>> Usenet has to be manually refreshed, but if you use it for e-mail, that
>> can be set to check as often as you want automatically.
>>
>> Makes you wonder why the usenet reader part never got the same
>> functionality.
>
>I guess polling your own email server frequently is your own business.
>Polling a shared usenet server might be seen as rude.

Except that when Agent was new and Usenet was popular, almost every ISP
carried it for their customers, their _paying_ customers, so polling as
often as you wanted would be in no way rude.

Xocyll
-- 
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of 
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably, 
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So 
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr 

On Wed, 01 Feb 2017 22:19:44 -0500, Xocyll <Xoc...@gmx.com> wrote:

>Toby Newman <goo...@asktoby.com> looked up from reading the entrails of
>the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs say:

>>>>Nope. I use Forte Agent for news, and that software always requires a
>>>>manual refresh.
>>>
>>> It's a curious thing about agent;
>>> Usenet has to be manually refreshed, but if you use it for e-mail, that
>>> can be set to check as often as you want automatically.
>>>
>>> Makes you wonder why the usenet reader part never got the same
>>> functionality.
>>
>>I guess polling your own email server frequently is your own business.
>>Polling a shared usenet server might be seen as rude.
>
>Except that when Agent was new and Usenet was popular, almost every ISP
>carried it for their customers, their _paying_ customers, so polling as
>often as you wanted would be in no way rude.

Very important thing to note about Agent is that is was designed in 
the era of dial-up connections. Basic news session would consist of a 
call with a modem to an ISP modem bank, software would download the
messages and then the connection would be dropped, possibly even
by the ISP, if there was no activity in the connection.

You would write your replies and messages while connection is still  
offline, and when done, make another phone call.

Therefore it is very logical that a newer newsreader, including 
Windows OE and Live, and Mozilla Thunderbird would be able to
constantly monitor a newsgroup and update message pool on the run.

On Thu, 02 Feb 2017 13:03:46 +0200, Rudi <ru...@iki.fi> wrote:

>Therefore it is very logical that a newer newsreader, including 
>Windows OE and Live, and Mozilla Thunderbird would be able to
>constantly monitor a newsgroup and update message pool on the run.

...but Agent can't.

argh, went and hit "send message" just a bit hurriedly, didn't realize
a sentence was incomplete :)

Cheers !
R.

Rudi <ru...@iki.fi> looked up from reading the entrails of the porn
spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs say:

>On Thu, 02 Feb 2017 13:03:46 +0200, Rudi <ru...@iki.fi> wrote:
>
>>Therefore it is very logical that a newer newsreader, including 
>>Windows OE and Live, and Mozilla Thunderbird would be able to
>>constantly monitor a newsgroup and update message pool on the run.
>
>...but Agent can't.
>
>argh, went and hit "send message" just a bit hurriedly, didn't realize
>a sentence was incomplete :)


Except your logic is flawed.

Because you downloaded messages and read/replied offline, it makes
perfect sense to have an automatic dialup-get new messages-go back
offline sequence to give you the maximum pool of messages to read,
instead of having to manually check for messages and wait while they
download while you are sitting at the computer.

Far more logical and efficient to be able to set it up to check every
hour or two, while you are at school/work or sleeping and have a load of
messages waiting for you the moment you are ready to read.

Agent will happily go online, check email, and then go offline again as
many times a day as you want, while you are not there to deal with them,
why not usenet messages too?

Xocyll
-- 
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of 
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably, 
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So 
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr 

On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 10:10:24 -0500, Spalls Hurgenson
<spallsh...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Back at Usenet's height, I checked it numerous times per day, probably
>along the number of times people check Facebook today. It was really
>the only way to keep up with discussions.
>
>As Usenet usage dwindled, I restricted myself to checking twice a day
>- before and after work - so I would actually find something
>worthwhile to read.
>
>These days I'm down to once a day - it's part of my morning ritual:
>wake up, brush teeth, drink coffee, check usenet, go to work. But I
>still make it a point to check at least once every day.
>
>But given the declining number of comments in this newsgroup, I figure
>that most aren't that regular. 
>
>So how often do you check Usenet these days?
>
>Just curious.
>


*--

A couple times a day, but only three or four text groups.  No
binaries.

-pw