![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 32 to 56 of 58. Go back in thread:
Posted by NikkiT2 on November 13, 2002, at 11:18:52
In reply to Re: newsgroups, posted by oracle on November 13, 2002, at 10:50:37
I don't use outlook or any other mail system, and I don't use netscape!!! No newsgroup broswer for me..
Personally, I don't like the news group style.. Il ike this site as it is as its easy for me to follow..
Nikki
Posted by oracle on November 13, 2002, at 15:37:41
In reply to Re: newsgroups, posted by NikkiT2 on November 13, 2002, at 11:18:52
> I don't use outlook or any other mail system, and I don't use netscape!!! No newsgroup broswer for me..
>
> Personally, I don't like the news group style.. Il ike this site as it is as its easy for me to follow..
>
> NikkiSigh.
Posted by NikkiT2 on November 13, 2002, at 16:41:39
In reply to Re: newsgroups, posted by oracle on November 13, 2002, at 15:37:41
Oracle, why the sigh?? I simply stated my preference like you had been.
I have alot of experience on the net and know what i like, and what i don't like. I have left many message boards etc as the format just wasn't what I class as user friendly.
This site, as it is, is very user friendly, and can be used by people who have very little knowledge of computers and the net.
Like i said, just my opinion.
Nikki
Posted by oracle on November 13, 2002, at 16:43:23
In reply to Re: newsgroups, posted by NikkiT2 on November 13, 2002, at 11:18:52
> Personally, I don't like the news group style.. Il ike this site as it is as its easy for me to follow..
>
> Nikki1) Any browser is a news reader
2) I was not sugesting moving too news group format, rather adding it as an option
3) Nikki, god forbid you learn anything new from the internet
Posted by oracle on November 13, 2002, at 17:02:09
In reply to Re: newsgroups » oracle, posted by NikkiT2 on November 13, 2002, at 16:41:39
> Oracle, why the sigh?? I simply stated my preference like you had been.
It has been my experience that any time a good idea is suggested that might mean a slight change
there is a big back lash here. I see this every time a new board is suggested, this despite the new boards doing quite well. To listen to the complaints one would of never thought these boards would do so well.
Posted by Dinah on November 13, 2002, at 17:14:30
In reply to Re: newsgroups, posted by oracle on November 13, 2002, at 17:02:09
You think the new boards are doing well? I keep feeling compelled to read the book just so the discussion thread on the book board will be a bit longer. The reunion boards are rarely used, although if they provide a safe place for some of my favorite posters, I withdraw my objections on principle to them. The faith board is so circumscribed that there is little activity on it. I often get the odd idea that those who feel the freest to post on it are the atheists and agnostics, because everyone else is afraid of saying something, well, religious.
I must confess to a fondness for PPB, and think it's a good place to be able to look thru the archives and see the same situations that inevitably come up over and over all in once place.
Even PSB has been awfully slow. The meds board remains thriving.
I have no particular objection to any of the boards, but it wouldn't have occurred to me to describe them as doing "so well".
Ah well, a difference in perception I guess.
As to the visual aesthetics involved with newsgroups vs. Babble, it's not a question of change to me. It's more a question of a rather linearly organized brain that deals more easily with this format. I'm sure that those of you that are more spatially oriented would find the other format appealing.
Posted by oracle on November 13, 2002, at 18:54:04
In reply to Re: newsgroups » oracle, posted by Dinah on November 13, 2002, at 17:14:30
The faith board is so circumscribed that there is little activity on it. I often get the odd idea that those who feel the freest to post on it are the atheists and agnostics, because everyone else is afraid of saying something, well, religious.
Well, one person has not problems posting about his religion.
I do think it was a cop out on Dr Bob to offer that board. The whole religion issue is a can o worms. Creating a board just the please one person and deal with a problem, I think, is just creating another.
Or to look at it another way, Bob bends over backwards if someone is not well liked and the rest feel short changed.
Posted by Dinah on November 13, 2002, at 19:51:55
In reply to Re: newsgroups, posted by oracle on November 13, 2002, at 18:54:04
Posted by oracle on November 13, 2002, at 22:30:28
In reply to Re: newsgroups, posted by oracle on November 13, 2002, at 18:54:04
I often get the odd idea that those who feel the freest to post on it are the atheists and agnostics, because everyone else is afraid of saying something, well, religious.
Huh ? ASAICT as long as one's god does not call us all fools, everyone elses ability to "saying something religious" is not prohibited.
Diana, I am really suprized you made that statement.Perhaps it is the first time " atheists and agnostics" get to speak up and their beliefs are held equal to the religious peoples.
Posted by Dinah on November 13, 2002, at 22:51:16
In reply to Re: newsgroups, posted by oracle on November 13, 2002, at 22:30:28
Awww, don't take offense. I have nothing against atheists or agnostics, or their speaking of their beliefs.
I'm just remembering the history of the board. Remember? First all the Christians decided it was unwise to post because they couldn't state one of the basic tenets of their faith. Now I'm a bit afraid to post, because I'm not sure where I'll cross the line. I had to check my favorite hymns for hints of inappropriate content. But agnostics are ideally situated, almost by definition. I could provide links, by date of the various decisions to withdraw, but I don't think I have the patience.
I truly meant no offense. I just wonder about the faith board sometimes.
Dinah
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 13, 2002, at 22:56:12
In reply to Re: newsgroups, posted by oracle on November 13, 2002, at 17:02:09
> > > The other advantage of NNTP is it is as old a protocal as any on the web. Every mail reader supports it.
> >
> > Well, that's the other thing, how many people even have a newsreader anymore?
>
> Well, if *every mail reader* supports it, I would think most people have a news reader !Sorry, missed that sentence, duh! :-)
"Every mail reader" includes Eudora?
> 1) Any browser is a news reader
And every web browser as well as every mail reader?
> 3) Nikki, god forbid you learn anything new from the internet
Please don't imply that someone who has different preferences just hasn't learned as much...
> It has been my experience that any time a good idea is suggested that might mean a slight change there is a big back lash here.
I do think people here (and maybe in general) tend not to like change, but maybe that's just liking stability, or consistency, which I think is natural. And change isn't *necessarily* for the better...
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 14, 2002, at 0:28:41
In reply to Re: newsgroups » oracle, posted by Dinah on November 13, 2002, at 22:51:16
> I keep feeling compelled to read the book just so the discussion thread on the book board will be a bit longer.
Thanks! I do think there's even more of a critical mass issue there, since it's like a single-thread board...
> The faith board is so circumscribed that there is little activity on it. I often get the odd idea that those who feel the freest to post on it are the atheists and agnostics, because everyone else is afraid of saying something, well, religious.
>
> DinahBut of course it's not religiosity per se that's the problem...
----
> I do think it was a cop out on Dr Bob to offer that board. The whole religion issue is a can o worms. Creating a board just the please one person and deal with a problem, I think, is just creating another.
It wasn't just for one person. Faith is important to a lot of people.
> Or to look at it another way, Bob bends over backwards if someone is not well liked and the rest feel short changed.
>
> oracleSo try to like everyone! :-)
----
> agnostics are ideally situated, almost by definition.
>
> DinahHmm... I think I see what you mean, but I'm not sure that's the way it should be -- and I'm sorry if that's the way it's become. I think it should be fine for someone who's agnostic to say that's their belief, but not for them to say that's the only correct belief.
OTOH... another way, and in fact more like the way I originally had in mind, would be to limit PBF to those who do "serve and worship God or the supernatural". Or at least support doing so. Since the idea is after all to be supportive.
What do you all think? I'm leaning that way again...
Someone could still post about a "crisis of faith", they would just be more likely to be encouraged to have faith then not. Someone who was agnostic or atheist could still post about that at PSB. Would this be favoritism? I guess so, but there's a designated board for medication, but not for, say, exercise...
Bob
Posted by bluedog on November 14, 2002, at 1:37:37
In reply to Re: newsgroups, posted by Dr. Bob on November 13, 2002, at 22:56:12
I still maintain having the newsreader NNTP format as an OPTION would be the way to go.
As I mentioned in a previous post, the grc newsgroups give you the CHOICE whether to access the newsgroups via the web OR via a newsreader.
Wouldn't this keep both groups happy??? (except Jay of course who would miss out on all those cool graphics available at the Rush site , lol )
Posted by Dinah on November 14, 2002, at 2:05:12
In reply to Re: faith board (and books just a little), posted by Dr. Bob on November 14, 2002, at 0:28:41
> > I keep feeling compelled to read the book just so the discussion thread on the book board will be a bit longer.
>
> Thanks! I do think there's even more of a critical mass issue there, since it's like a single-thread board...
>You're welcome, but it is a bit of a discouraging endeavor, I must confess. Fortunately I read quickly, or it would be quite disappointing to put in so much effort... Still, I am forging thru the next book.
>
> > agnostics are ideally situated, almost by definition.
> >
> > Dinah
>
> Hmm... I think I see what you mean, but I'm not sure that's the way it should be -- and I'm sorry if that's the way it's become. I think it should be fine for someone who's agnostic to say that's their belief, but not for them to say that's the only correct belief.
>
> OTOH... another way, and in fact more like the way I originally had in mind, would be to limit PBF to those who do "serve and worship God or the supernatural". Or at least support doing so. Since the idea is after all to be supportive.
>
> What do you all think? I'm leaning that way again...
>
> Someone could still post about a "crisis of faith", they would just be more likely to be encouraged to have faith then not. Someone who was agnostic or atheist could still post about that at PSB. Would this be favoritism? I guess so, but there's a designated board for medication, but not for, say, exercise...
>
> BobI'm not sure it would make much difference, to be honest. Just my opinion. I'm fine with agnostics and atheists posting on the faith board, although it would be nice if frankly negative or mocking references towards any deity or deities or force of nature, etc. were also not allowed. It probably wouldn't encourage me to post more, but it would prevent me from feeling like I have to defend the object of my worship. So I guess it would actually lead to less posting on my part.
Just my opinion, rarely humble.
Posted by NikkiT2 on November 14, 2002, at 6:18:16
In reply to Re: newsgroups, posted by oracle on November 13, 2002, at 16:43:23
I leanr alort from the net thankyou. Like I said, I have alot of experience on the net, and alot of experience of different board formats. I also have plenty of experience of designing my own stuff, including boards.
We are all allowed our opinion, and my opinion was simply that I prefer thsi format for message boards. And that it was easy for all levels of experience to use. Not everyone here is going to ahve the knowledge and expereince you obviously have. In my line of work (database designer and programmer) user friendlyness is very important, so thats always my first concern.
There is no need to for you to get nasty about it.
Nikki
Posted by oracle on November 14, 2002, at 10:39:58
In reply to Re: newsgroups, posted by Dr. Bob on November 13, 2002, at 22:56:12
And change isn't *necessarily* for the better...
>
> BobAlso, resisting every change, for no reason other than change, is not good, either.
Posted by oracle on November 14, 2002, at 11:13:15
In reply to Re: newsgroups » oracle, posted by NikkiT2 on November 14, 2002, at 6:18:16
> I leanr alort from the net thankyou.
Glad to hear it !
Given that I am not suggesting a change, but an addition, if you do not like the news format then do not use it. Adding it will not change anything
for the web format.What I object too is the knee jerk reaction to change. No one stops to get the facts.
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 14, 2002, at 19:38:52
In reply to Re: newsgroups, give us the choice?, posted by bluedog on November 14, 2002, at 1:37:37
> I still maintain having the newsreader NNTP format as an OPTION would be the way to go.
>
> As I mentioned in a previous post, the grc newsgroups give you the CHOICE whether to access the newsgroups via the web OR via a newsreader.How easy is it to add an nntp interface?
Bob
Posted by Mashogr8 on November 15, 2002, at 14:58:31
In reply to Re: newsgroups, posted by Dr. Bob on November 14, 2002, at 19:38:52
I've been trying to follow this thread with all the compulingo, I don't have enough RAM to try to figure out what you are discussing. I would just like to say that I am happy with what is currently being used. I understand it and I think I know how to use it effectively. I also use "Eudora". Is this going to be an issue?
MA
Posted by IsoM on November 15, 2002, at 15:25:17
In reply to Re: newsgroups, posted by oracle on November 14, 2002, at 11:13:15
Would you please drop me a line at isomorphix at hotmail dot com?
Posted by oracle on November 15, 2002, at 16:07:17
In reply to Re: newsgroups, posted by Dr. Bob on November 14, 2002, at 19:38:52
How easy is it to add an nntp interface?
>
> BobServer side or client side ?
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 16, 2002, at 8:18:56
In reply to Re: newsgroups, posted by oracle on November 15, 2002, at 16:07:17
> How easy is it to add an nntp interface?
>
> Server side or client side ?To the server side, to give clients access that way.
Bob
Posted by oracle on November 17, 2002, at 10:39:28
In reply to Re: newsgroups, posted by Dr. Bob on November 16, 2002, at 8:18:56
> > How easy is it to add an nntp interface?
> >
> > Server side or client side ?
>
> To the server side, to give clients access that way.
>
> BobYour server is already running NNTP, the news server package. This service is alive right now on your server.
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 17, 2002, at 11:04:05
In reply to Re: newsgroups, posted by oracle on November 17, 2002, at 10:39:28
> > > How easy is it to add an nntp interface?
>
> Your server is already running NNTP, the news server package. This service is alive right now on your server.OK, but I guess my real question was, how easy would it be to add an nntp interface *to these boards*?
Bob
Posted by oracle on November 17, 2002, at 14:00:56
In reply to Re: newsgroups, posted by Dr. Bob on November 17, 2002, at 11:04:05
> OK, but I guess my real question was, how easy would it be to add an nntp interface *to these boards*?
>
> BobHmmmm, that is the hard question. NNTP
can use HTML as its format, so not problems there.
It might work to just point "document root" of NTTP (the place where all the html is) to the same place you use for the web pages.The real rub is posting. I assume perl formats the submitted pages and makes HTML ? Then just point the output of NNTP (when one posts) to your perl scripts. This might take are of athe issue of naming, ie, you do not want the seperate system possibly naming 2 pages the same.
Then there is the issue of username/passwords. How are you doing this ? If you are using the unix password file, it is very easy.
Without knowing specifics it is hard to say.
I think it best not to post the inner workings of
this board on a public place, could you mail me this info ?1) What NTTP news server do you have
2) How do you do auth to be allowed to post
3) Describe the process thru which a user posts,
ie how does a summited post get to the final product.I'll check on some of my other lists and see if anyone has done this already.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.