🚀 go-pugleaf

[Followups set.  The good 'doctor' is free to respect them or not.]

In article <Pine.BSD.3.91.960210040634.4038C-100000@terrazzo.lm.com>,
DrG  <manus@manus.org> wrote:
>On Fri, 9 Feb 1996, David Veal wrote:
[Theoretical stuff about Giant Killer Hamsters in rec.autos...]

>>        I have to spend sufficient time with it to know that it isn't what 
>> I'm interested in reading.  Further, the thread subject often has little 
>
>What needed investigated about the "Giant Killer Hamsters?"

        As might be noted by anybody who's spent thirty seconds or more
in any newsgroup on Usenet, you often can't tell where the discussion
has gone from the subject line.

>>        Wouldn't it be a lot easier on everyone if people made an effort 
>> to route their postings to groups of the appropriate subject?
>> 
>So what? -- all newsgroups are public property.

        Aside from the iffy nature of this statement, even in the 'real
world' you can't go littering up public property however you want.  Try
dumping trash in a public park in front of a police officer.

        "Public place" is entirely different from "public property."

>That means nothing to you.  You route messages to the intended viewer!

        Which is typically the audience interested in the topic of my 
article.  How do I know whether they're interested?  They're subscribed
to the newsgroup dedicated to that topic.  And conversely, those subscribed
to other newsgroups are clearly not interested.

>> > >       A little courtesy on people's parts when it comes to newsgroups
>> > >lines will make things a lot more pleasant on everybody.  This whole 
>
>And the courtesy is to stay the fuck out of peoples' mailboxes when 
>talking about any Usenet stuff.  Usenet is a joke.  E-mail is for business.
>Get them straight.

        This takes on comic proportions when the two responses you've made
to my usenet messages have also been sent directly to my mailbox.  If that's
not you, you need to find out which malfunctioning gateway is reflecting
your messages.

>> > >concept of proudly cross-posting to every group that comes to mind or has 
>> > >ever been in the thread is certainly not very appealing.
>
>That is not my concept.  I post to only the relevant groups.
>However, that may be over 20 groups sometimes.

        You have an odd definition of relevance.  Newsgroups are not 
something people arbitrarily subscribe to so you have to specifically
chose where to send them for people to see them.  It's based on content,
and you chose your target audience by subject.  Usenet is not loud e-mail.

>> > so, tell the poster that in his home-newsgroup. >> 
>> In the first place there's no real way to tell what somebody's 
>> "home group" is, assuming it has any meaning.  (Newsgroups are defined by 
> 
>BULLSHIT!  You KNOW that MY home.newsgroup is alt.is.too 
>And newsgroups are defined by POPULATION even more than subject. 

       I know what you call your 'home newsgroup' largely because I read 
the net-abuse group for entertainment value.  Any random person in one of the
newsgroups you cross-post may not know that, and frankly there's no reason
they should.  You're advocating more then people simply act a certain
way toward you.  You're advocating a change in the way people act on
Usenet, period.  It's absurd to suggest we should all chose a 'home
group' and that everybody we deal with should keep track of that.

       People read anywhere from one to dozens of newsgroups.

>It is the PEOPLE who frequent those
>newsgroups that make the rules, 
>not some old stupid charter or FAQ. 

       In the first case, last I looked I was still a 'people.'  In the
second case, the charter (and to a much, much lesser extent the FAQ)
is a means for the people who are interested to make the rules.  Although
the FAQ is more often a, "Ask these questions and we'll laugh at you."

       But the rules are largley unenforceable, and that isn't the point.
The point is courtesy, and writing articles in such a way that you don't
dump large quantities of them on people who have no interest in them, and 
by any reasonable standard you have no reason to assume they're interested.

       Reading rec.autos doesn't make me interested in what you have to
say just because you happen to be arguing with somebody else who reads
rec.autos.;

>Yes there IS a basis for that demand!  The person SAYS so!

       "I want this!" as a reason is something a three-year-old would
say.  Usenet can only function if a majority of people act in a way
that makes the system more useful.  Contrary to popular belief, even
if a majority wanted to act in a certain way that doesn't mean what
they want to do isn't destructive.
 
>If you break the rules, both you and your ISP get mailbombed 
>and attacked with virus and worms, dig?

       Speaking of lack of enforcement...
 
>Now you take any FURTHER discussion of this
>issue to the GROUPS, where it belongs! Now any further infraction on your
>part are considered e-mail harassment at this address, ans ANY response
>will be justified and legal. 

       "Infraction" in a public place.  Right.
-- 
David Veal  lveal1@utk.edu / veal@web.ce.utk.edu 
"Any smoothly functioning technology will be
indistinguishable from a rigged demo."  - Isaac Asimov