Why so little traffic on a Mustang Usenet group?
 

I'm soliciting theories that would account for the differences between
the amount of communication on the dozens of Internet forums and the
very few Mustang-related Usenet groups.

I have seen those forums, and I'm not really very impressed with the
general caliber of correspondents. There are some worthwhile sites, but
....

Without wide experience on Usenet, I have the impression the discourse
here is more likely to be civil, considered, and serious in comparison
to the forums.

How come?

--
Frank ess


--
Frank ess

Why so little traffic on a Mustang Usenet group?
 

On Tue, 9 Apr 2013 17:43:36 -0700, "Frank S" >
wrote:

>I'm soliciting theories that would account for the differences between
>the amount of communication on the dozens of Internet forums and the
>very few Mustang-related Usenet groups.
>
>I have seen those forums, and I'm not really very impressed with the
>general caliber of correspondents. There are some worthwhile sites, but
>...
>
>Without wide experience on Usenet, I have the impression the discourse
>here is more likely to be civil, considered, and serious in comparison
>to the forums.
>
>How come?
>
>--
>Frank ess

- Usenet is uncontrolled so it attracts lots of spam and crazy people.
- It cost ISPs money to support Usenet so most of them stopped
supporting it and running servers for it.
- Usenet was a known commodity to the "older" generation who started
out on CompuServe and text based networking and they were comfortable
using it. An awful lot of the "newer" generation never became aware
of it or found using it too complicated so the user base has dwindled
way off.

I much prefer Usenet for "discussion" since you can have hundreds of
discussions all in one organized framework.

I generally don't like the "Forums" because it fragments everything
including things that really should all be discussed together... Like
Mustangs. Now to discuss "mustangs" you have to join several forums,
email lists, groups, etc and you wind up either missing a lot of
interesting stuff or reading teh same stuff posted redundantly.

You can't fight "progress" and it seems Usenet is doomed to eventually
die out due to lack of support and participation. Certainly the
objections to all the spam and cross posting are valid ones, problems
that can be controlled in "Forums" - that is one good thing about
"forums".

- One thing you rarely find on Usenet anymore is civility however. The
anonymity makes to too easy to start flame wars.

Why so little traffic on a Mustang Usenet group?
 

"Frank S" > wrote in message
...
> I'm soliciting theories that would account for the differences between
> the amount of communication on the dozens of Internet forums and the
> very few Mustang-related Usenet groups.

why? dont have a job ? lots of other mustang forums besides uslessnet

>
> I have seen those forums, and I'm not really very impressed with the
> general caliber of correspondents. There are some worthwhile sites, but
> ...

your judgement of content is meaningless,
we will not feed your narssistic personality
since you are not talking about mustangs, you are a spammer, and
contaminate and degrade the uselessnet.


>
> Without wide experience on Usenet, I have the impression the discourse
> here is more likely to be civil, considered, and serious in comparison
> to the forums.

yes you do not have experience. Talk about your blown 24# 1993 instead,
gumby.



>
> How come?

I dont know why you have no experience, dude. Ask you mommie.

>
> --
> Frank ess
>
>
> --
> Frank ess

-- thats f*cking gay, frankliey boy.

Why so little traffic on a Mustang Usenet group?
 

On 2013-04-10, Ashton Crusher > wrote:

> - Usenet is uncontrolled so it attracts lots of spam and crazy people.
> - It cost ISPs money to support Usenet so most of them stopped
> supporting it and running servers for it.
> - Usenet was a known commodity to the "older" generation who started
> out on CompuServe and text based networking and they were comfortable
> using it. An awful lot of the "newer" generation never became aware
> of it or found using it too complicated so the user base has dwindled
> way off.
>
> I much prefer Usenet for "discussion" since you can have hundreds of
> discussions all in one organized framework.

> I generally don't like the "Forums" because it fragments everything
> including things that really should all be discussed together... Like
> Mustangs. Now to discuss "mustangs" you have to join several forums,
> email lists, groups, etc and you wind up either missing a lot of
> interesting stuff or reading teh same stuff posted redundantly.

I really dislike web forum software. All that anyone had to do was mimic
one of the many decent newsreaders out there and they didn't. Same with
the google groups interface for usenet. Pure crap. There's no reason web
forums can't work, they are just use crappy interfaces and they aren't
getting better. comment systems, blogs, etc and so forth are just
getting worse and worse not better. Slower, more clicks, more
annoyances, more broken pieces and bugs.

I can fly through usenet. everything is well ordered with a decent
newsreader. I still read it via a terminal emulator from
my own unix box. Web forums are slow and clunky. The better ones have
canned 'new' post searches that bring up the active threads. That's
about as good as it gets.

> You can't fight "progress" and it seems Usenet is doomed to eventually
> die out due to lack of support and participation. Certainly the
> objections to all the spam and cross posting are valid ones, problems
> that can be controlled in "Forums" - that is one good thing about
> "forums".

> - One thing you rarely find on Usenet anymore is civility however. The
> anonymity makes to too easy to start flame wars.

I find a great deal of less that civil behavior in forums and even on
social media sites. Some of it gets canned, threads get shut down, but
it still happens.

Usenet is essentially dead. I found an autos/driving blog to my liking
and I post there now more than I do to usenet. It's much nicer and the
wordpress software is ok so long as thread branches don't get too deep
and I can read it like an admin would, which this one allows. No admin
powers, but I can read threads through the admin interface, but by most
recent rather than subject. It's klunky but livable since I read almost
all the threads anyway. If I didn't read nearly all the threads it
wouldn't work so well.

Why so little traffic on a Mustang Usenet group?
 

On 4/9/2013 19:43, Frank S wrote:
> I'm soliciting theories that would account for the differences between
> the amount of communication on the dozens of Internet forums and the
> very few Mustang-related Usenet groups.
>
> I have seen those forums, and I'm not really very impressed with the
> general caliber of correspondents. There are some worthwhile sites, but
> ...
>
> Without wide experience on Usenet, I have the impression the discourse
> here is more likely to be civil, considered, and serious in comparison
> to the forums.
>
> How come?
>


You must be new here? LOL The kind of flaming that used to happen
here would never be tolerated on a moderated forum.

Why so little traffic on a Mustang Usenet group?
 

On 4/9/2013 20:44, AMiews wrote:
> "Frank S" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I'm soliciting theories that would account for the differences between
>> the amount of communication on the dozens of Internet forums and the
>> very few Mustang-related Usenet groups.
>
> why? dont have a job ? lots of other mustang forums besides uslessnet


Oh look, another 15yo found Usenet....

Why so little traffic on a Mustang Usenet group?
 

On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 06:15:38 +0000 (UTC), Brent
> wrote:

>On 2013-04-10, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
>
>> - Usenet is uncontrolled so it attracts lots of spam and crazy people.
>> - It cost ISPs money to support Usenet so most of them stopped
>> supporting it and running servers for it.
>> - Usenet was a known commodity to the "older" generation who started
>> out on CompuServe and text based networking and they were comfortable
>> using it. An awful lot of the "newer" generation never became aware
>> of it or found using it too complicated so the user base has dwindled
>> way off.
>>
>> I much prefer Usenet for "discussion" since you can have hundreds of
>> discussions all in one organized framework.
>
>> I generally don't like the "Forums" because it fragments everything
>> including things that really should all be discussed together... Like
>> Mustangs. Now to discuss "mustangs" you have to join several forums,
>> email lists, groups, etc and you wind up either missing a lot of
>> interesting stuff or reading teh same stuff posted redundantly.
>
>I really dislike web forum software. All that anyone had to do was mimic
>one of the many decent newsreaders out there and they didn't. Same with
>the google groups interface for usenet. Pure crap. There's no reason web
>forums can't work, they are just use crappy interfaces and they aren't
>getting better. comment systems, blogs, etc and so forth are just
>getting worse and worse not better. Slower, more clicks, more
>annoyances, more broken pieces and bugs.
>
>I can fly through usenet. everything is well ordered with a decent
>newsreader. I still read it via a terminal emulator from
>my own unix box. Web forums are slow and clunky. The better ones have
>canned 'new' post searches that bring up the active threads. That's
>about as good as it gets.
>
>> You can't fight "progress" and it seems Usenet is doomed to eventually
>> die out due to lack of support and participation. Certainly the
>> objections to all the spam and cross posting are valid ones, problems
>> that can be controlled in "Forums" - that is one good thing about
>> "forums".
>
>> - One thing you rarely find on Usenet anymore is civility however. The
>> anonymity makes to too easy to start flame wars.
>
>I find a great deal of less that civil behavior in forums and even on
>social media sites. Some of it gets canned, threads get shut down, but
>it still happens.
>
>Usenet is essentially dead. I found an autos/driving blog to my liking
>and I post there now more than I do to usenet. It's much nicer and the
>wordpress software is ok so long as thread branches don't get too deep
>and I can read it like an admin would, which this one allows. No admin
>powers, but I can read threads through the admin interface, but by most
>recent rather than subject. It's klunky but livable since I read almost
>all the threads anyway. If I didn't read nearly all the threads it
>wouldn't work so well.
>
>

One of the biggest problems on Forums, besides the fact that the mere
proliferation of them has horribly segmented the potential user base,
is trying to read new, threaded messages. You need to constantly
start over, going up and down the tree to get to what's new and many
times it's hard to tell what's new till you "get there". Decent
Usenet Readers have made all this stuff like a warm knife thru butter
but sadly the tide is against them.

Why so little traffic on a Mustang Usenet group?
 

On Tue, 9 Apr 2013 20:44:03 -0500, "AMiews" >
wrote:

>
>"Frank S" > wrote in message
m...
>> I'm soliciting theories that would account for the differences between
>> the amount of communication on the dozens of Internet forums and the
>> very few Mustang-related Usenet groups.
>
>why? dont have a job ? lots of other mustang forums besides uslessnet
>
>>
>> I have seen those forums, and I'm not really very impressed with the
>> general caliber of correspondents. There are some worthwhile sites, but
>> ...
>
>your judgement of content is meaningless,
>we will not feed your narssistic personality
>since you are not talking about mustangs, you are a spammer, and
>contaminate and degrade the uselessnet.
>
>
>>
>> Without wide experience on Usenet, I have the impression the discourse
>> here is more likely to be civil, considered, and serious in comparison
>> to the forums.
>
>yes you do not have experience. Talk about your blown 24# 1993 instead,
>gumby.
>
>
>
>>
>> How come?
>
>I dont know why you have no experience, dude. Ask you mommie.
>
>>
>> --
>> Frank ess
>>
>>
>> --
>> Frank ess
>
>-- thats f*cking gay, frankliey boy.
>


Thanks for posting a real life example, you, of the kind of assholes
who have ruined Usenet. It's too bad you trolls can't get a life and
leave your blow up dolls with the lifelike female/male parts in the
closet.

Why so little traffic on a Mustang Usenet group?
 

On 4/10/2013 17:16, Ashton Crusher wrote:

> One of the biggest problems on Forums, besides the fact that the mere
> proliferation of them has horribly segmented the potential user base,
> is trying to read new, threaded messages. You need to constantly
> start over, going up and down the tree to get to what's new and many
> times it's hard to tell what's new till you "get there". Decent
> Usenet Readers have made all this stuff like a warm knife thru butter
> but sadly the tide is against them.
>

It's easier if you know how to manipulate the software, but I'm a
moderator and administrator so I have more experience than a lot of people.

Why so little traffic on a Mustang Usenet group?
 

On 4/10/2013 17:18, Ashton Crusher wrote:

>>> Frank ess
>>
>> -- thats f*cking gay, frankliey boy.
>>
>
>
> Thanks for posting a real life example, you, of the kind of assholes
> who have ruined Usenet. It's too bad you trolls can't get a life and
> leave your blow up dolls with the lifelike female/male parts in the
> closet.
>

Maybe he used to be herc ast or troy the troll and thinks hes funny?
I fondly remember Michael Dykes and Steve Everest in "Flaming to music"
ROFL!

Why so little traffic on a Mustang Usenet group?
 

"AMiews" wrote in message ...


Yawn.

dwight

Why so little traffic on a Mustang Usenet group?
 

On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 19:24:26 -0500, "WindsorFox<SS>"
> wrote:

>On 4/10/2013 17:16, Ashton Crusher wrote:
>
>> One of the biggest problems on Forums, besides the fact that the mere
>> proliferation of them has horribly segmented the potential user base,
>> is trying to read new, threaded messages. You need to constantly
>> start over, going up and down the tree to get to what's new and many
>> times it's hard to tell what's new till you "get there". Decent
>> Usenet Readers have made all this stuff like a warm knife thru butter
>> but sadly the tide is against them.
>>
>
> It's easier if you know how to manipulate the software, but I'm a
>moderator and administrator so I have more experience than a lot of people.


True, but the downside is there are several different softwares
running forums so what you learn on one may not work on the other.
Plus, it seems like some of the authors of forum software have no idea
what "usability" means and can make finding a simple search box and
Easter egg hunt.

Why so little traffic on a Mustang Usenet group?
 

On Wednesday, April 10, 2013 5:26:13 PM UTC-7, WindsorFox<SS> wrote:
>
>
>
> Maybe he used to be herc ast or troy the troll and thinks hes funny?
>
> I fondly remember Michael Dykes and Steve Everest in "Flaming to music"
>
> ROFL!

It's good to be remembered fondly, and not fondling...

Steve
Head of the Bashing Department
"I'll Add That to My Threat Collection" -Dirty Harry
**** Disturber

Why so little traffic on a Mustang Usenet group?
 

"A Guy Named Steve" wrote in message
...

>
> It's good to be remembered fondly, and not fondling...
>
> Steve
> Head of the Bashing Department
> "I'll Add That to My Threat Collection" -Dirty Harry
> **** Disturber

Any more, I feel like an outsider. No more Mustangs for me... But the Ford
Focus newsgroup is even DEADER than this one. AND, damned if I can find any
decent Focus apparel. Mustangs, sure, you've got your pick of jackets, T's,
whatever. Focus....eh... not so much.

Half my damn wardrobe still says Mustang on it.

dwight

Why so little traffic on a Mustang Usenet group?
 

On Saturday, May 11, 2013 at 9:55:42 PM UTC-5, A Guy Named Steve wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 10, 2013 5:26:13 PM UTC-7, WindsorFox<SS> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Maybe he used to be herc ast or troy the troll and thinks hes funny?
> >
> > I fondly remember Michael Dykes and Steve Everest in "Flaming to music"
> >
> > ROFL!
>
> It's good to be remembered fondly, and not fondling...
>
> Steve
> Head of the Bashing Department
> "I'll Add That to My Threat Collection" -Dirty Harry
> **** Disturber

Although I'm replying to a nearly 4 year old post on an ancient newsgroup (is "ancient newsgroup" redundant?), do you still have the Skylark GS 455?

Why so little traffic on a Mustang Usenet group?
 

10 Nisan 2013 Çarşamba 04:43:36 UTC+4 tarihinde Frank S yazdı:
> I'm soliciting theories that would account for the differences between
> the amount of communication on the dozens of Internet forums and the
> very few Mustang-related Usenet groups.
>
> I have seen those forums, and I'm not really very impressed with the
> general caliber of correspondents. There are some worthwhile sites, but
> ...
>
> Without wide experience on Usenet, I have the impression the discourse
> here is more likely to be civil, considered, and serious in comparison
> to the forums.
>
> How come?
>
> --
> Frank ess
>
>
> --
> Frank ess

Why so little traffic on a Mustang Usenet group?
 

On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 4:54:08 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Saturday, May 11, 2013 at 9:55:42 PM UTC-5, A Guy Named Steve wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 10, 2013 5:26:13 PM UTC-7, WindsorFox<SS> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Maybe he used to be herc ast or troy the troll and thinks hes funny?
> > >
> > > I fondly remember Michael Dykes and Steve Everest in "Flaming to music"
> > >
> > > ROFL!
> >
> > It's good to be remembered fondly, and not fondling...
> >
> > Steve
> > Head of the Bashing Department
> > "I'll Add That to My Threat Collection" -Dirty Harry
> > **** Disturber
>
> Although I'm replying to a nearly 4 year old post on an ancient newsgroup (is "ancient newsgroup" redundant?), do you still have the Skylark GS 455?

And here I am replying to your reply... months later.

I don't have the GS455 anymore. The black 71 was sold is 2002, IIRC. I did pick up $300 Skylark with a blown 350 around 2005. I had a 455 that went into it. I never got it finished though. I put some really good heads/intake on it along with a trans with a stall somewhere in the mid 2000's. It still had the original 2.56 open rear in it. I drove it to the drag strip with some straight pipe into 3" Dynomax mufflers. With the rear and stall converter, I had to drive in 2nd gear (TH400, I think). It was a stock block with the heads/intake/Holley 850/headers. It went 13.50 @ 106 mph, crossing the line still in 2nd gear. But the 1-2 shift point was higher than it should have been and a bearing was spun.

A friend who set up the engine swap, had the motor rebuilt with some .030 pistons I had, a better cam, and he had the heads ported. But I never got it finished. I ended up selling it to another friend who has a GS400 that needed a motor. Then he sold the body to the guy who done all the work to build something for his son.

I'm always on the lookout for something, but it hasn't been a priority. I'd love to get back on the track. I did, however, get to do the Xtreme Xperience down in NOLA in 2016. Drove a Lamborghini Gallardo and a Ferrari 458 around their big track. I didn't see the speed on the straight in the Gallardo, but the instructor figured about 140mph. In the 458, I saw the needle sweep past 145 while I was still in it.

So there ya go...

Steve
Head of the Bashing Department
"I'll Add That to My Threat Collection" -Dirty Harry
**** Disturber