🚀 go-pugleaf

Perhaps I did not communicate my thinking well enough.  I recognize
the need and desireability of peer-review publication, and well
understand why researchers pursue publication in those forums.  My
point is that there is much thinking, referencing, and informal
communication which is part of the process of creating a manuscript of
sufficient quality for publication in such journals, and that this
forum, comp.groupware, may be valuable in that process.

Rather than try to change the informality of the newsgroup, let us use
it to our advantage.  An excellent model would be the TCP-IP mailing
list (also known as comp.protocols.tcp-ip) where the theoreticians,
the implementors (originally applied-researchers and now vendors as
well), and the users/customers have all been involved in the evolution
of the TCP-IP protocol suite over the course of the past ten years.

-Ittai

PS: If you were at CSCW '90, you would have been informed by Esther
    Dyson, that the word "groupware" is now passe :-).

PPS: Is anyone going to post a trip report of CSCW '90?  Why aren't
     the organizers participating in this forum, by the way?  At the
     very least one would think they'd want to promote CSCW '91 in
     Toronto...

According to dsstodol@daimi.aau.dk (David S. Stodolsky):
>Minimum requirements for a signature include complete name, address,
>and telephone number (this allows quick verifications in case forgery
>is suspected).

Under no circumstances will I ever put my phone number in my
signature.  To do so would be asking for crank calls.

In article <2736D7D0.5090@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
> Under no circumstances will I ever put my phone number in my
> signature.  To do so would be asking for crank calls.

Funny, it's never been a problem with me. The only thing I ever got that
was anything like a crank call was from Richard Sexton. That was when he told
me he agreed that sci.aquaria was a bogus name and he was only pushing it for
political reasons. I wish I'd taped it.
-- 
Peter da Silva.   `-_-'
+1 713 274 5180.   'U`
peter@ferranti.com

In article <2736D7D0.5090@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg)
writes:

$ Under no circumstances will I ever put my phone number in my
$ signature.  To do so would be asking for crank calls.

I did it for a long time and never had a problem.  Maybe one or two
people called me.  No crank calls, only helpful stuff.

I got a few advertisements to my US Mail address.  They were amusing
and not annoying.  They had the potential of being helpful, in fact.
--
        Tom Reingold
        tr@samadams.princeton.edu  OR  ...!princeton!samadams!tr
        "Warning: Do not drive with Auto-Shade in place.  Remove
	from windshield before starting ignition."

In article <=7Z6EY2@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>In article <2736D7D0.5090@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>> Under no circumstances will I ever put my phone number in my
>> signature.  To do so would be asking for crank calls.
>
>Funny, it's never been a problem with me. The only thing I ever got that
>was anything like a crank call was from Richard Sexton. 

Same here.  [Uh, the lack of problems, that is.  Not crank calls from Mr.
Sexton...:-)]  I suspect that a lack of calls has something to do with
the overall psychology of net participation.  For most of us it is
[a] easier, [b] preferred, [c] less emotionally trying, or [d] some
combination of the above, to remain fully electronic in our communication.
It may also be that conversing via the keyboard does not, in a subjective
sense, seem to take as much time as the physical act of dialing the
phone and holding a voice discussion.

Not that I wouldn't like to hear more voices.  Especially from those motos
who lack serious morals, or anyone with extremely lucrative job offers.

:-):-):-)

[Firesuit on.  I just couldn't resist.]


-- 
<:>   Dean Riddlebarger                               "The bus came by   <:>
<:>   Truevision, Inc.                                  and I got on,    <:>
<:>   [317] 841-0332                                   That's when it    <:>
<:>   dean@truevision.com      uunet!epicb!dean         all began."      <:>

In article <4335@rossignol.Princeton.EDU> tr@samadams.princeton.edu (Tom Reingold) writes:
#In article <2736D7D0.5090@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg)
#writes:
#$ Under no circumstances will I ever put my phone number in my
#$ signature.  To do so would be asking for crank calls.
#
#I did it for a long time and never had a problem.

That is probably a function of the newsgroups in which you post and with whom 
you have disagreed. There have been many examples unlike your personal 
experience.

Even suggesting that people post their phone number in some newsgroups and
not in others will not work: the more seriously psychotic posters have been
known to cruise all newsgroups to post flames to every posting by their
target, and will go at least that far to find your phone number.

Email letter bomb campaigns are bad enough. Do we *really* want to make others
risk auto-dialing modem attacks?

Doug Monk (bro@rice.edu)

Disclaimer: These views are mine, not necessarily my organization's.