On 03/02/2026 18:11, Don wrote:...
After the ISIS warlord appointed himself King of Syria, Israel's main
puppet cancelled the $10,000,000 bounty on his head.
There were more than a hundred girls employed by Epstein over his
undisturbed career but only one client has been identified so far.
But there is little future in discussing politics here where the
emphasis should be on sharing. Apart from Dimwire's pathetic and
dishonest attempts to protect his income, I don't think there are any Republican or Trump supporters left here because of pointless arguments.
I miss the Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy because he was entertaining
and generated a lot of discussion, eg electric cars.
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote or quoted:
I've not used the chatbots much, and I had no idea you can use it like
this.
These days, some people try to pass off AI-generated stuff
as their own, so I figured I'd flip that around for once as
kind of a joke - one I planned to clear up later - and said my
work came from a chatbot. Truth is, I actually ran the stats
myself with a little Python script I wrote.
I've long wanted to make a chart of the number of active RASFW
writers over time.
'Active Writer' means someone who has contributed comments in
a give year or month. Not original posters, since we used to
have a major spam problem, which was almost always in the
form of new threads.
It's possible that some of the sources I pulled my raw data
from already filtered out some spam, but here's a count with
counts of all the posts of a year in the second column and
counts of only the follow-ups in the third.
Year Count Follow
-up
count
2004 119265 116602
2005 112320 109625
2006 118100 114856
2007 118167 106506
2008 95188 92369
2009 95420 93208
2010 91185 89370
2011 81160 78803
2012 60961 59250
2013 46223 45074
2014 31743 30652
2015 28629 27809
2016 31216 30243
2017 22512 21306
2018 21340 20059
2019 23217 21746
2020 30471 28734
2021 24211 22829
2022 17209 15939
2023 10868 9698
2024 9369 8348
2025 7322 6349
2026 509 455 (So far, til around January 29, 2026)
After the ISIS warlord appointed himself King of Syria, Israel's main
puppet cancelled the $10,000,000 bounty on his head.
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote or quoted:
Is there any chance figuring out the number of posters that made those
comments in each bucket? That's would be the number of 'active posters'
in my opinion.
Yes.
number of postings
| number of followups
| | number of different From-names of followups
v v v change of that number of names
year count follow. unique change
2004 119265 116602 3471
2005 112320 109625 3178 -8.44%
2006 118100 114856 3649 +14.82%
2007 118167 106506 3172 -13.07%
2008 95188 92369 2322 -26.80%
2009 95420 93208 1888 -18.69%
2010 91185 89370 1475 -21.88%
2011 81160 78803 1433 -2.85%
2012 60961 59250 848 -40.82% strong decline in 2012
2013 46223 45074 673 -20.64% and the following years
2014 31743 30652 505 -24.96%
2015 28629 27809 396 -21.58%
2016 31216 30243 373 -5.81%
2017 22512 21306 304 -18.50%
2018 21340 20059 266 -12.50%
2019 23217 21746 268 +0.75%
2020 30471 28734 244 -8.96%
2021 24211 22829 188 -22.95%
2022 17209 15939 160 -14.89%
2023 10868 9698 153 -4.38%
2024 9369 8348 135 -11.76%
2025 7322 6349 151 +11.85%
2026 509 455 39 (so far til ~ January 29, 2026)
For example, for this year, 2026, the set counted was
(in no particular order and without names appearing
after approximately January 29 and without names that
never wrote a followup):
|{ 'Scott Dorsey', 'Ted Nolan <tednolan>', 'Mark Jackson',
| 'Tony Nance', 'Don', 'The Doctor', 'BCFD 36',
| 'Dimensional Traveler', 'Thomas Koenig', 'James Nicoll',
| 'Charles Packer', 'Your Name', 'Gary R. Schmidt',
| 'Cryptoengineer', 'The True Melissa', 'Bobbie Sellers',
| 'Jay Morris', 'Titus G', 'Mark Shaw', 'John Savard',
| 'Stefan Ram', 'Scott Lurndal', 'Torbjorn Lindgren',
| 'Garrett Wollman', 'Alexander Schreiber', 'Mickmane',
| 'Lynn McGuire', 'Steve Coltrin', 'Robert Woodward',
| 'Christian Weisgerber', 's|b', 'Lee Gleason', 'Jerry Brown',
| 'Paul S Person', 'danny burstein', 'Peter Fairbrother',
| 'William Hyde', 'Lawrence D?Oliveiro', 'Ignatios Souvatzis' }
(should be 39).
One can observe that in 2006 there were fewer postings but more
different poster names than in 2004!
On 2/4/2026 2:11 PM, Stefan Ram wrote:
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote or quoted:
Is there any chance figuring out the number of posters that made those
comments in each bucket? That's would be the number of 'active posters'
in my opinion.
˙˙ Yes.
number of postings
˙˙˙˙˙˙ |˙˙˙˙˙˙ number of followups
˙˙˙˙˙˙ |˙˙˙˙˙˙ |˙˙˙˙˙˙ number of different From-names of followups
˙˙˙˙˙˙ v˙˙˙˙˙˙ v˙˙˙˙˙˙ v˙˙˙˙˙ change of that number of names
year˙ count˙˙ follow. unique change
2004˙ 119265˙ 116602˙ 3471
2005˙ 112320˙ 109625˙ 3178˙˙ -8.44%
2006˙ 118100˙ 114856˙ 3649˙ +14.82%
2007˙ 118167˙ 106506˙ 3172˙ -13.07%
2008˙˙ 95188˙˙ 92369˙ 2322˙ -26.80%
2009˙˙ 95420˙˙ 93208˙ 1888˙ -18.69%
2010˙˙ 91185˙˙ 89370˙ 1475˙ -21.88%
2011˙˙ 81160˙˙ 78803˙ 1433˙˙ -2.85%
2012˙˙ 60961˙˙ 59250˙˙ 848˙ -40.82%˙ strong decline in 2012
2013˙˙ 46223˙˙ 45074˙˙ 673˙ -20.64%˙ and the following years
2014˙˙ 31743˙˙ 30652˙˙ 505˙ -24.96%
2015˙˙ 28629˙˙ 27809˙˙ 396˙ -21.58%
2016˙˙ 31216˙˙ 30243˙˙ 373˙˙ -5.81%
2017˙˙ 22512˙˙ 21306˙˙ 304˙ -18.50%
2018˙˙ 21340˙˙ 20059˙˙ 266˙ -12.50%
2019˙˙ 23217˙˙ 21746˙˙ 268˙˙ +0.75%
2020˙˙ 30471˙˙ 28734˙˙ 244˙˙ -8.96%
2021˙˙ 24211˙˙ 22829˙˙ 188˙ -22.95%
2022˙˙ 17209˙˙ 15939˙˙ 160˙ -14.89%
2023˙˙ 10868˙˙˙ 9698˙˙ 153˙˙ -4.38%
2024˙˙˙ 9369˙˙˙ 8348˙˙ 135˙ -11.76%
2025˙˙˙ 7322˙˙˙ 6349˙˙ 151˙ +11.85%
2026˙˙˙˙ 509˙˙˙˙ 455˙˙˙ 39˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙ (so far til ~ January 29, 2026)
˙˙ For example, for this year, 2026, the set counted was
˙˙ (in no particular order and without names appearing
˙˙ after approximately January 29 and without names that
˙˙ never wrote a followup):
|{ 'Scott Dorsey', 'Ted Nolan <tednolan>', 'Mark Jackson',
|˙ 'Tony Nance', 'Don', 'The Doctor', 'BCFD 36',
|˙ 'Dimensional Traveler', 'Thomas Koenig', 'James Nicoll',
|˙ 'Charles Packer', 'Your Name', 'Gary R. Schmidt',
|˙ 'Cryptoengineer', 'The True Melissa', 'Bobbie Sellers',
|˙ 'Jay Morris', 'Titus G', 'Mark Shaw', 'John Savard',
|˙ 'Stefan Ram', 'Scott Lurndal', 'Torbjorn Lindgren',
|˙ 'Garrett Wollman', 'Alexander Schreiber', 'Mickmane',
|˙ 'Lynn McGuire', 'Steve Coltrin', 'Robert Woodward',
|˙ 'Christian Weisgerber', 's|b', 'Lee Gleason', 'Jerry Brown',
|˙ 'Paul S Person', 'danny burstein', 'Peter Fairbrother',
|˙ 'William Hyde', 'Lawrence D?Oliveiro', 'Ignatios Souvatzis' }
˙˙ (should be 39).
˙˙ One can observe that in 2006 there were fewer postings but more
˙˙ different poster names than in 2004!
Thank you very much. I've been wondering about this for a while. So
about a 95% decline in posters over 22 years.
I feel like we're 6th century nomads, camping out in the ruins
of the Roman Forum, overshadowed by wrecks of former glory.
I've seen so many names vanish one by one.
pt
Yes, the outspoken "liberals" have driven out almost everybody who has different opinions than they have. (And what "pointless arguments" are
you talking about?)
On 2026-02-03, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
After the ISIS warlord appointed himself King of Syria, Israel's main
puppet cancelled the $10,000,000 bounty on his head.
If you mean Syrian president al-Sharaa aka al-Jolani, he used to
be with al-Quaeda, who are actually opponents of ISIS.
The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote or quoted:
Yeah, during a recent crosspost, I noticed someone in AUE saying that
he'd removed "the Dave groups" from the crosspost. It's sad, but I can't >fix him.
After looking into it later, I got the sense that
comments like
|[Doctor groups removed for noise reduction]
(aue, 2025-12-28+01:00) refered to removing groups
from the Newsgroups header (crosspost groups), and
so the issue was more about people cross-posting
stuff all over the place for no real reason than
about posting stats.
On 05/02/2026 03:22, Chris Buckley wrote:
snip
Yes, the outspoken "liberals" have driven out almost everybody who has
different opinions than they have. (And what "pointless arguments" are
you talking about?)
Political arguments. The political arguments here don't seem to achieve anything except drive away people who in the main had contributed to the
SF discussion.
On 2026-02-05, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:has
On 05/02/2026 03:22, Chris Buckley wrote:
snip
Yes, the outspoken "liberals" have driven out almost everybody who
aredifferent opinions than they have. (And what "pointless arguments"
achieveyou talking about?)
Political arguments. The political arguments here don't seem to
theanything except drive away people who in the main had contributed to
folksSF discussion.
I'm not sure what definition of "political argument" you mean here.
If you mean that politics as a whole should not be mentioned, then
that seems unrealistic. If you mean "2 or more people arguing about >politics", then Congratulations! You're well on the way to achieving
that by driving out the people you disagree with. If you discourage
from objecting to the many counter-factual statements that some liberalsthose
post here, then you've successfully reduced the number of arguments!
You seem to be taking the position that it's OK to personally attack
you disagree with, calling them names and insulting them with "racist"or
"dishonest" but you don't approve of using facts to contradict their arguments.the
Sorry, but I strongly believe the reverse.
If the sentiment of the group is that only liberals are allowed to post >freely about politics, all others must be discouraged, then I will obey
sentiment of the group. But I don't believe that is the case. Is it?
On 6 Feb 2026 15:25:41 GMT, Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:
On 2026-02-05, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:has
On 05/02/2026 03:22, Chris Buckley wrote:
snip
=20
Yes, the outspoken "liberals" have driven out almost everybody who =
aredifferent opinions than they have. (And what "pointless arguments" =
achieveyou talking about?)
Political arguments. The political arguments here don't seem to =
theanything except drive away people who in the main had contributed to =
folksSF discussion.
I'm not sure what definition of "political argument" you mean here.
If you mean that politics as a whole should not be mentioned, then
that seems unrealistic. If you mean "2 or more people arguing about >>politics", then Congratulations! You're well on the way to achieving
that by driving out the people you disagree with. If you discourage =
from objecting to the many counter-factual statements that some liberals >>post here, then you've successfully reduced the number of arguments!those
You seem to be taking the position that it's OK to personally attack =
you disagree with, calling them names and insulting them with "racist" =or
"dishonest" but you don't approve of using facts to contradict their = >arguments.
Sorry, but I strongly believe the reverse.
If the sentiment of the group is that only liberals are allowed to post >>freely about politics, all others must be discouraged, then I will obey = >the
sentiment of the group. But I don't believe that is the case. Is it?
Not as far as I am concerned.
On 6 Feb 2026 15:25:41 GMT, Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:
On 2026-02-05, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 05/02/2026 03:22, Chris Buckley wrote:
snip
Yes, the outspoken "liberals" have driven out almost everybody who has >>>> different opinions than they have. (And what "pointless arguments" are >>>> you talking about?)
Political arguments. The political arguments here don't seem to achieve
anything except drive away people who in the main had contributed to the >>> SF discussion.
I'm not sure what definition of "political argument" you mean here.
If you mean that politics as a whole should not be mentioned, then
that seems unrealistic. If you mean "2 or more people arguing about >>politics", then Congratulations! You're well on the way to achieving
that by driving out the people you disagree with. If you discourage folks >>from objecting to the many counter-factual statements that some liberals >>post here, then you've successfully reduced the number of arguments!
You seem to be taking the position that it's OK to personally attack those >>you disagree with, calling them names and insulting them with "racist" or >>"dishonest" but you don't approve of using facts to contradict their arguments.
Sorry, but I strongly believe the reverse.
If the sentiment of the group is that only liberals are allowed to post >>freely about politics, all others must be discouraged, then I will obey the >>sentiment of the group. But I don't believe that is the case. Is it?
Not as far as I am concerned.
However, if you that only (some) liberals post counter-factual
statements -- that is, that /no/ conservatives post counter-factual statements -- you are deceiving yourself.
As I have noted before, there are wing-nuts on /all/ sides.
If the sentiment of the group is that only liberals are allowed to post freely about politics, all others must be discouraged, then I will obey the sentiment of the group. But I don't believe that is the case. Is it?
Chris Buckley wrote:
If the sentiment of the group is that only liberals are allowed to post
freely about politics, all others must be discouraged, then I will
obey the
sentiment of the group. But I don't believe that is the case.˙ Is it?
Back when we had three hundred posts a day, political discussions were something of a problem (at least the ones to which I did not contribute
my infinite wisdom).˙ Why, sometimes my right index finger got sore from clicking˙ through them!˙˙ But now that we have about twenty posts a day,
a political discussion involving a further twenty posts would not be a hardship.
Besides, now I have a killfile.
(On a similar topic, the splitting of the sf groups made sense in the
1990s, now it makes no sense at all.˙ If all sf posts were made to only
one group we would be better off.)
Things change without rhyme or reason.˙ There was a time, a long time,
when the top three posters, by a wide margin, were conservatives (not
that I can assert that all would be maga nowadays).
In those days Terry was quite a bit more liberal, as fit his contrarian inclinations.˙ Not actually liberal, but not the voice he has been since late in the last decade.˙ He occasionally wanted to be worth talking to.
˙And was.
I had good discussions with one of the three, and some with another, who
was a bit insane but not politically so.˙ I regret the departure of two
of the three.
But nobody drove them out.
William Hyde
| Sysop: | Tetrazocine |
|---|---|
| Location: | Melbourne, VIC, Australia |
| Users: | 15 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 249:21:17 |
| Calls: | 207 |
| Files: | 21,502 |
| Messages: | 83,512 |