🚀 go-pugleaf

jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) in <4300@lib.tmc.edu> writes:

>The rest of us seem to get along just fine with Usenet as it is. What's
>your beef? 

How many bits did it take to get this message across the net?
------------------
From: tetra@cup.portal.com (daniel TetraHedon willits)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.drugs
Subject: Re: Heterosexual transmission, was Drug War Test: Try it!
Message-ID: <34977@cup.portal.com>
Date: 18 Oct 90 02:26:35 GMT
References: <64002@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> <2103@oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU>
  <34942@cup.portal.com> <271CA11A.15897@ics.uci.edu>
Distribution: alt
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Lines: 1

Thanks dave!
------------------------

I argue that a well structured feedback method would *reduce* traffic, while
*increasing* the quality of articles read. The proposal is valid on strictly
technical grounds. (I am sorry to admit I am not the dave being thanked :-). 

>As I said, there's not a whole lot you can do about the level
>of flamage on the net, and complicated proposals for greatly limiting the
>volume of discussion certainly won't help.
 
No. NO. NO! If you reread the paper, you will note I explicitly state there is
no limitation of posting at all. Quality is improved by inviting more competent
readers to post. This is the crucial difference between a "Consensus Journal"
and a normal peer review journal. If someone want to make a total fool of
themselves, there is no "gatekeeper" to stop them. Sounds pretty much like the
Net right now. 1/2 ;-)

--
David S. Stodolsky                  Office: + 45 46 75 77 11 x 21 38
Department of Computer Science                Home: + 45 31 95 92 82 
Bldg. 20.2, Roskilde University Center        Internet: david@ruc.dk
Post Box 260, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark        Fax: + 45 46 75 74 01