r.p.d.zlr

The newsgroup z.p.d.zlr was somewhat popular a year ago but today it appears to be abandoned.  Does anybody know what happened to it?

On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 19:03:09 GMT, measekite wrote
in :

The newsgroup z.p.d.zlr was somewhat popular a
year ago but today it appears to be abandoned.  Does anybody know what
happened to it?

Withering away due to too low signal-to-noise and too high discourtesy,
like the rest of Usenet.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 19:03:09 GMT, measekite wrote
in :

!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
html
head
/head
body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"
font face="sans-serif"The newsgroup z.p.d.zlr was somewhat popular a
year ago but today it appears to be abandoned.  Does anybody know what
happened to it?br
/font
/body
/html

Please post in plain text only (per Usenet guidelines).
Not all newsreaders can handle HTML. Thanks.
Easy to change in your Thunderbird Options.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 19:03:09 GMT, measekite wrote:
!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
html
head
/head
body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"
font face="sans-serif"The newsgroup z.p.d.zlr was somewhat popular a
year ago but today it appears to be abandoned.  Does anybody
know what happened to it?br
/font
/body
/html

Probably died from folks inappropriately posting in HTML!

On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 19:03:09 +0000, measekite wrote:

!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" html
head
/head
body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000" font face="sans-serif"The
newsgroup z.p.d.zlr was somewhat popular a year ago but today it appears
to be abandoned.  Does anybody know what happened to it?br
/font
/body
/html

PLease take your html into my killfile.

--
Neil
reverse ra and delete l
Linux user 335851

On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 19:03:09 GMT, measekite wrote:

!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
html
head
/head
body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"
font face="sans-serif"The newsgroup z.p.d.zlr was somewhat popular a
year ago but today it appears to be abandoned.  Does anybody know what
happened to it?br
/font
/body
/html

It was a stupid idea when they created the group. There was never any need
for any of the rec.photo.digital.* groups. The group, r.p.d.zlr is almost
as stupid as posting in HTML.

On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 17:30:26 -0500, TH O wrote in
:

In article ,
John Navas wrote:

On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 19:03:09 GMT, measekite wrote
in :

The newsgroup z.p.d.zlr was somewhat popular a
year ago but today it appears to be abandoned.  Does anybody know what
happened to it?

Withering away due to too low signal-to-noise and too high discourtesy,
like the rest of Usenet.

Too high discourtesy ... you mean like the original poster/troll who
refuses to stop posting HTML posts?

That's part of it, but the personal name calling and flaming is a much
bigger part.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 16:33:53 -0600, Tom Hise wrote in
:

On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 19:03:09 GMT, measekite wrote:

!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
html
head
/head
body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"
font face="sans-serif"The newsgroup z.p.d.zlr was somewhat popular a
year ago but today it appears to be abandoned.  Does anybody know what
happened to it?br
/font
/body
/html

It was a stupid idea when they created the group. There was never any need
for any of the rec.photo.digital.* groups. The group, r.p.d.zlr is almost
as stupid as posting in HTML.

It presumably passed the formal approval process, so a large majority
seemed to favor it.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 22:40:23 GMT, John Navas
wrote in
:

On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 16:33:53 -0600, Tom Hise wrote in
:

On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 19:03:09 GMT, measekite wrote:

!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
html
head
/head
body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"
font face="sans-serif"The newsgroup z.p.d.zlr was somewhat popular a
year ago but today it appears to be abandoned.  Does anybody know what
happened to it?br
/font
/body
/html

It was a stupid idea when they created the group. There was never any need
for any of the rec.photo.digital.* groups. The group, r.p.d.zlr is almost
as stupid as posting in HTML.

It presumably passed the formal approval process, so a large majority
seemed to favor it.

What I suspect happened is that all the noise and discourtesy drove away
those that were interested in using it. I can well understand that --
I find myself less and less interested in Usenet, and more inclined to
use other forums that have higher signal-to-noise and less discourtesy.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 08:01:16 -0600, Jim Townsend
wrote:

Current camera makers and dealers just don't use the term ZLR. (I think
Olympus once used it as a marketing catch phrase for a couple of their
models).

And ironically they were actual SLR cameras with a fized
zoom, not the non-reflex EVF cameras that this group was
intended to represent.

Several of us made this point during the discussion period
but the proponant wouldn't shift from the (inaccurate) ZLR
name.

Time has demonstrated why some of us disagreed with the
choice and tried to get the name changed...

Since the term is rarely used, most people have no idea what a ZLR is.
It's not hard to see why rec.photo.digital.zlr isn't that popular.

Exactly :-(


--
John Bean