🚀 go-pugleaf

Folks,

     I do not wish this debate to go on any longer than
necessary.  It is clear from the postings thus far that the
majority of NETTRAIN subscribers who have expressed an opinion on
the issue object to the posting of the Project Gutenberg
newsletters on this list, both because of their length and
repetitiveness and because many subscribers already receive them
on other lists.  Some subscribers, on the other hand, do find
them useful.

     I would like to come to a resolution of this matter.
Therefore, in the future:

     1)  Updates on Project Gutenberg posted to NETTRAIN will be
         limited to (A) announcements of new issues of the
         newsletter, with instructions for mail or ftp access,
         and (B) announcements of the availability of specific
         Internet training documents through Project Gutenberg.
         NETTRAIN subscribers are busy people and often do not
         have time to read through lengthy messages, with the
         result that relevant information may be lost.  Limiting
         such postings will make them more useful.  I hope Mr.
         Hart will edit his postings accordingly, but if he does
         not, I will edit them.

     2)  These postings should include notice that complete
         Project Gutenberg information is available through the
         discussion list GUTNBERG@UIUCVMD.

     Of course, Michael Hart, like anyone else, is free to join
NETTRAIN and contribute to the ongoing discussion of training
issues.  This policy is intended merely to limit off-topic
postings, particularly by non-subscribers to the list.

     I would also like to remind NETTRAINers that the list
nis@cerf.net (network information services) is intended as a
forum for announcements of new Internet resources such as
additions to the Project Gutenberg library.  NETTRAIN subscribers
wishing to receive updates on new resources should send the
command "SUB NIS Firstname Lastname" to listserv@cerf.net.

     No further messages on this topic will be posted after
tomorrow (Thursday, 2/4/93).

     Thank you for your participation.

Jim Milles (listowner/moderator, NETTRAIN)    Fax: (314) 658-3966
Head of Computer Services                   Phone: (314) 658-2759
Saint Louis University Law Library        millesjg@sluvca.slu.edu


----------- Original message below forwarded by NETTRAIN moderator ------------

Date: Tue, 02 Feb 93 16:21:36 CST
From: "Michael S. Hart" <HART%vmd.cso.uiuc.edu@WUVMD.Wustl.Edu>

[Note: This was originally sent as a private message to me.
Since Michael Hart is not a NETTRAIN subscriber, I sent him
copies of the NETTRAIN messages on this issue.  Mr. Hart has
given me permission to post his response for the list.
--Jim Milles]

I have read this 900 line file through once and would respond thus:

1.  The initial message you refused to post was not 400 lines; not
    even half that long, not even a quarter that long as I recall.

2.  Your refusal to post it, without even reading the fourth etext
    on the list, was a most serious breach of (n)and ettiquette).

3.  The boilerplateness of your refusal was another serious one.

4.  Your personal feeling overrode your rationality in all aspects
    from the very beginning.

5.  You said you had received a single negative note, then changed
    that to the plural immediately (though perhaps you got more) a
    moment after my posting.  When you mentioned that you were for
    responding to these notes, I sent you a note offering notes to
    be sent to you to give you a more representative sample.  Your
    responsiblity, if you thought this was not inappropriate is to
    merely say so. . .you didn't. . .so you got them.

6.  You failed to mention that I didn't WANT to send ALL Gutenberg
    notes to any other lists, where they would be inappropriate in
    a big way, but only to post the most important two or three in
    an average month, one of which might be fairly predictable (in
    this case, there were many changes).  _I_, personally, find it
    preferable to send one large message than a lot of small ones,
    as I would have had to do in this case.

7.  No one can really complain in this case as I hadn't posted any
    Newsletters or Newsletter2s since Thanksgiving.

8.  After your initial tirade I am quite surprised that anyone was
    willing to say anything positive at all.

9.  I don't think YOU would like it if "Jim Milles' NETTRAIN  were
    the way others referred to you and NETTRAIN.

10. Your personal biases were all too evident from the beginning--
    I suppose I should not have accepted your invitation to post a
    Gutenberg posting again. . .seriously. . . .  I knew you had a
    feeling about this that was subjective and should have taken a
    more sensitive approach. . .I just didn't know how. . .sorry.

11. I didn't see any complaints about the SF (Merit?) Conferences,
    a rather pricey endeavor, being posted to more lists than I am
    posting to.  Nor the Internet Hunt results.

12. I just don't believe in the peer-group pressure method so many
    people use in moderating the nets.  If you are going to post a
    Hunt result of 600 lines every month, how can you complain for
    400 lines from Gutenberg?  I get 20,000 lines of email a day--
    400 is unnoticeable.  (I do get NETTRAIN, I just get it from a
    Project Gutenberg Director. . .my mailer goes nuts at 20,000 a
    a day, so I get the rest elsewhere).

Now. . .having said all that. . .in one typewritten page or so:  I
would offer an olive branch. . .how about I promise NOT to post in
excess of 1,000 lines a month in toto to NETTRAIN unless I get any
current threads on OTHER SUBJECTS to talk about. . .fair enough to
start with?  Then, we can try working it down to 900. . .800. . .>

I don't want to envision you as a brick wall. . .and I don't think
you should want to envision be as wanting to knock it down.  Facts
being what they are:  I would not have bothered you at all, except
for the numerous requests I got from NETTRAINers to repost my note
from time to time. . . .

I hope I won't ever put you in the position of feeling bothered by
me again. . .because I hope we would have opened up better methods
of communication by then.

I hope to be thanking you soon for your time and consideration,


=====================================================

Thank you for your interest,

Michael S. Hart, Professor of Electronic Text
Executive Director of Project Gutenberg Etext
Illinois Benedictine College, Lisle, IL 60532
No official connection to U of Illinois--UIUC
hart @uiucvmd.bitnet or hart@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu


----------- Original message below forwarded by NETTRAIN moderator ------------

Date: Tue, 02 Feb 93 18:16:21 -0500
From: Lou Rosenfeld <lou@squirrel.sils.umich.edu>

As someone who is trying to help spread the Internet gospel on
my campus, I am also helping create the "market" for Michael
Hart's product.  But our new users have access to a primitive
e-mailer which costs for connect time and can't display headers
of mail for quick deletion.  So when our users see such long
postings as Mr. Hart's, they throw up their hands in frustration
and swear off listservs and often the Internet in general.  I can't
cast an anti-Gutenberg vote because I believe it holds some re-
levance to this list.  But to all long posters, and to Mr. Hart
in particular, *PLEASE* consider what you're doing when you hit
that send button.  Turning off new users means shooting yourself
in the foot and wasting the efforts of all NetTrainers.

==Lou Rosenfeld, Univ. Michigan


----------- Original message below forwarded by NETTRAIN moderator ------------

Date: Tue, 02 Feb 93 15:31:45 PST
From: Terry Brainerd Chadwick <CWTC%PSUORVM.BITNET@UBVM.cc.buffalo.edu>

  While I do think that the Gutenberg Newsletter, without the editorial
comment, has a training function--I use it to show what is available
on the net--I cast my vote for dropping it from Nettrain.
  The Gutenberg Newsletter is available on at least five other lists
I subscribe to, and if it weren't I'd subscribe to the Gutenberg list.
Therefore, there is no need to have it here.  In addition, Michael
Hart has a tendency to take a thread from one listserv and post his
answer on several others.  I think it is well within Jim Mille's right
as a moderator to exclude a post that answers a Libref-l thread.
  Nettrain should not be the only list that network trainers subscribe
to.  PACS-L, in particular, does a very good job of dealing with more
general network and library issues. Hart and Gutenberg are there as
well.
  Let's keep this list on the subject of techniques for training
people to use the net.
  Terry Brainerd Chadwick cwtc@psuorvm.bitnet


----------- Original message below forwarded by NETTRAIN moderator ------------

Date: Wed, 3 Feb 93 09:38 EST
From: Gerry Santoro - CAC/PSU 814-863-7896 <GMS@PSUVM.PSU.EDU>

I guess I'm the only person on NETTRAIN who is not offended/bothered by
the Project Gutenberg postings.  I also subscribe to maany lists (maybe
too many (:-)), but I examine the subject lines and simply discard those
that are either redundant or do not interest me.

I would, however, encourage the approach of a separate list on Project
Gutenberg.  I would certainly subscribe, as I am sure others would also.

gerry santoro  (gms@psuvm.psu.edu)                            |
academic computing/speech communication                     -(*)-
penn state university                                  .....  |  .....