From: Thomas Prufer <prufer.public@mnet-online.de.invalid>
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Usenet archive, TAFKAC replacement?
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2026 09:39:50 +0200
I spent the last year gathering and normalizing as many resources for
Usenet messages and built a search engine over public Usenet
discussions going back to 1981. Posting here because this seemed like
the one group that would actually care.
https://www.usenet-rewind.com/
Since Google Groups stopped indexing new Usenet content a
while back, and search over its historical archive has always been
rough- I wanted something that treats this as a real research
archive -- full-text search, date-range/filtering,etc and most
importantly as much Usenet data as possible going back as far as I could find.
The index currently holds (to date) roughly 980 million messages and is
still growing. Sources are archival backups, data donations, and ongoing crawls of several thousand still-active public NNTP servers. Binary and yEnc-encoded content is stripped where possible to keep the index
focused on text.
The index was built using Apache Solr 10, MariaDB 12 (rocksdb), Ubuntu 22.04.5 LTS & custom Python scripts, all on nvme disk.
This is public archival content, same legal basis as DejaNews and
Google Groups before it. There's a removal process for anyone who
wants their own posts taken down, and author contact info is masked
by default.
seems useful...
From: Thomas Prufer <prufer.public@mnet-online.de.invalid>
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Usenet archive, TAFKAC replacement?
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2026 09:39:50 +0200
Took this for a quick test drive: I think it works better than the Google offering...
Well, tonight we have the arrogant young CSI showing up at the racist
car dealer's business with a warrant and he explicitly says it's to "search every car on this lot".
Then, after all the cars are searched, our smirking CSI grabs the owner
by the shoulders, shoves a Q-Tip up his nose, and takes a swab of his
nose hairs or some-such.
Well, the boy wonder just blew the case since that was the only evidence that tied the guy directly to the bombing. The warrant was to search the cars, not the owner's body, therefore the nose swab exceeded the scope
of the warrant and is inadmissible.
Of course in these shows, they never actually have to go through the humiliation of having their super-duper evidence excluded at trial
because for some reason every suspect spontaneously confesses before talking to a lawyer as soon as the CSI's show them a picture or a spectrograph or whatever.
BONUS ABUSE: 6th Amendment
When the young racist kid presented his laminated card that said he refused to answer questions without a lawyer, at that point all questioning must stop. But did they? Nope. They kept asking him
questions and goaded him into talking.
It sure is a good thing everyone confesses on this show and they never have to actually go to court with this stuff....
I will admit that I am no lawyer, cop, etc. Just someone who
feels she sees things differently than you.
This is not a political forum, nor do I care to discuss politics
and keep going on this lengthy post about something that
was fictional.
Had this been a real case, we may have something to argue
over.
I am not going to apologize, because I still see what
I believe to be probable cause.
If I were a judge on the case, I would allow the evidence. That is essentially all I am saying.
I also I admit, I am probably a few years your junior, and do not have as much life experience or what have you... but that does not mean that I
should not be treated with the respect of someone who has one of the previously mentioned careers.
Again, I am not going to apologize, because I feel that there was probable cause and one could do a warrantless search.
Like I said, I do not work in law... so how would I know.
But how are we not sure that the guy called for a warrant?
Maybe he called someone in the lab and they got the warrant.
On Sep 9, 2026 at 4:23:09 PM PDT, "danny burstein" <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
seems useful...
From: Thomas Prufer <prufer.public@mnet-online.de.invalid>
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Usenet archive, TAFKAC replacement?
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2026 09:39:50 +0200
Took this for a quick test drive: I think it works better than the Google
offering...
I searched on my screen name and it came up with some threads from back in 2003 in alt.tv.csi that I don't even remember participating in. Basically a discussion on how the CSI shows are a cartoonish version of what cops really are and people getting pissed at me for "ruining the magic" with all my reality.
There was one girl in particular who I swear must have actually been clodreamer in disguise. No matter how hard I tried, I just couldn't break through the stupid. Again, I have no memory of this discussion at all.
From: BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
Subject: CSI Miami: 4th Amendment Abuse of the Week
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2004 00:30:22 -0700
"BTR1701" <> wrote in message:
In article <f7Npd.40701$>, "Nikki Lynn" <> wrote:
Well, tonight we have the arrogant young CSI showing up at the racist
car dealer's business with a warrant and he explicitly says it's to
"search every car on this lot".
Then, after all the cars are searched, our smirking CSI grabs the owner
by the shoulders, shoves a Q-Tip up his nose, and takes a swab of his
nose hairs or some-such.
Well, the boy wonder just blew the case since that was the only evidence >>> that tied the guy directly to the bombing. The warrant was to search the >>> cars, not the owner's body, therefore the nose swab exceeded the scope
of the warrant and is inadmissible.
Of course in these shows, they never actually have to go through the
humiliation of having their super-duper evidence excluded at trial
because for some reason every suspect spontaneously confesses before
talking to a lawyer as soon as the CSI's show them a picture or a
spectrograph or whatever.
BONUS ABUSE: 6th Amendment
When the young racist kid presented his laminated card that said he
refused to answer questions without a lawyer, at that point all
questioning must stop. But did they? Nope. They kept asking him
questions and goaded him into talking.
It sure is a good thing everyone confesses on this show and they never
have to actually go to court with this stuff....
I will admit that I am no lawyer, cop, etc. Just someone who
feels she sees things differently than you.
True. Unfortunately, the way you see things doesn't fit with the law.
This is not a political forum, nor do I care to discuss politics
and keep going on this lengthy post about something that
was fictional.
This isn't about politics. It's about law. And while the situation
presented was fictional, the underlying principles are not.
In fact, the presentation of such fictional situations and the analysis
of them is precisely the way law professors teach their students. When I
was in law school, my criminal law professor would routinely show us
clips from shows like LAW & ORDER and have us discuss the issues
involved.
Had this been a real case, we may have something to argue
over.
The fact that it's fictional in no way affects the merits of the legal debate.
I am not going to apologize, because I still see what
I believe to be probable cause.
What you don't seem to understand is that just having probable cause
isn't enough. A cop has to present the probable cause to a judge and
say, "See, judge I have probable cause to search. Can I have a warrant?"
Then the judge looks it over and if he agrees the probable cause is sufficient, he will issue a search warrant and only *then* can the cops legally conduct the search.
If I were a judge on the case, I would allow the evidence. That is
essentially all I am saying.
And you'd be overturned on appeal.
I also I admit, I am probably a few years your junior, and do not have as
much life experience or what have you... but that does not mean that I
should not be treated with the respect of someone who has one of the
previously mentioned careers.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. I haven't called you dumb or
stupid or in any way disparaged you. I merely told you that you are
wrong in your analysis of constitutional law and criminal procedure.
In fact, between the two of us, it was *you* who resorted to
name-calling.
Again, I am not going to apologize, because I feel that there was probable >> cause and one could do a warrantless search.
I don't know how many different ways I can say it: probable cause alone doesn't justify warrantless searches. A simple plain text reading of the
4th Amendment shows you that.
Like I said, I do not work in law... so how would I know.
Then you should accept the analysis of people who do work in that field
and not challenge concepts with which you are not familiar.
I know next to nothing about quantum physics. If a guy who had a PhD in quantum mechanics told me I was wrong about the propagation of electromagnetic energy across the event horizon of a black hole, I'd
listen to him and accept what he was saying. I wouldn't argue and keep insisting I was right despite my ignorance, that's for sure.
But how are we not sure that the guy called for a warrant?
Maybe he called someone in the lab and they got the warrant.
Doesn't matter. They have to serve the warrant on the person they want
to search before they conduct the search. The courts frown on telephonic warrants absent exigent circumstances.
There were none in this case and we never saw them calling anyone to get
a warrant, anyway. All we saw was Delco suddenly get suspicious moments before he grabbed the guy and shoved a Q-Tip up his nose.
Not only is that an illegal search, but as others here have pointed out,
it's actually an assault. Delco could have been arrested himself for
what he did.
It's all part and parcel of the atmosphere that permeates the Miami
show. The cops seem to all have this "we're cops, we can do whatever we
want" attitude.
They even do it to other cops on the show. I recall an episode from last
year where the CSI's recovered a briefcase full of counterfeit currency
and the blonde cop, Calley, refused to allow a Secret Service agent
access to it, saying it was Miami PD's case and the USSS would just
have to wait until they were done with it. She wouldn't even let the guy
see the results of her analysis of the bills.
If I had been that agent, I'd have given her a very clear choice: turn
the bills over to federal custody or I'll place you under arrest and charge you with obstruction of a federal investigation.
Um... What's the URL link for this.
I don't see it mentioned in here.
On Sep 9, 2026 at 4:23:09 PM PDT, "danny burstein" <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
seems useful...
From: Thomas Prufer <prufer.public@mnet-online.de.invalid>
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Usenet archive, TAFKAC replacement?
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2026 09:39:50 +0200
Took this for a quick test drive: I think it works better than the Google
offering...
I searched on my screen name and it came up with some threads from back in >2003 in alt.tv.csi that I don't even remember participating in. Basically a >discussion on how the CSI shows are a cartoonish version of what cops really >are and people getting pissed at me for "ruining the magic" with all my >reality.
There was one girl in particular who I swear must have actually been >clodreamer in disguise. No matter how hard I tried, I just couldn't break >through the stupid. Again, I have no memory of this discussion at all.
Where's this archive?
I'm interested.
| Sysop: | Jacob Catayoc |
|---|---|
| Location: | Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines |
| Users: | 4 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 497101:02:09 |
| Calls: | 182 |
| Files: | 744 |
| D/L today: |
41 files (6,007K bytes) |
| Messages: | 73,594 |