🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <SCOTT.92Apr11024138@nic.gac.edu> scott@nic.gac.edu (Scott Hess)  
writes:
|> Do you think that he hasn't been doing it all along?  By now everyone
|> should _know_ that Sean Fagan will be replying to your RTF post.  If
|> you cannot handle his replies, then don't post RTF.  That's the
|> point, after all.
[munch]
|> Perhaps that activity would have squelched of it's own accord.  I
|> can help but think that having the specter of Sean Fagan in your
|> future doesn't help squelch things even more.
[munch]
|> He reads the mail.  The bounced message basically indicates that
|> he's no longer interested in replying to your messages.  It's
|> self-preservation.  I periodically have to cut people off because
|> they are taking too much of my time in email conversations.  It
|> seldom happens - and it shows (because I never seem to have any time
|> :-).  Sean's just automated this.
Your defense of SEF is quite touching. But your method of defense is double
endged. If SEF can't handle the responses to his inflammatory e-mail then he
shouldn't be sending it. Bouncing isn't the answer (and it can come back
to bite him in the ass.)

And he's made no progress at reducing the net bandwidth. Which ever way
the vote on csn.rtf goes SEF loses. If the rtf group goes down then RTF
postings keep right on going in csnm. If the rtf group goes through then the
redirector messages will consume far more bandwidth than all the rtf postings
to csnm ever did.

It's damn tricky to stop the wheels of progress.

|> The point?  Put sounds and images on an archive site and post a
|> pointer to the information.  The text in most netnews posting is
|> barely worth the "paper" it's printed on, and that "paper" has the
|> lovely property that when you put images on it, they are worth ten
|> thousand words.  Quite literally.  If the information isn't worth
|> your time to put on an archive, then it's not worth the rest of us
|> paying to get it.
I can recall what it's like to not have FTP access. Reading the same flip
answer you give used to really piss me off. As big as the Internet is,
Usenet is far larger. Archive sites, even if they have e-mail gateways, are
not the answer. I think the answer is in the $2 billion about to be spent on
the Internet. When everyone can make a local phone call to gain access to 
the Internet, then archive sites will be the answer. Until then, why deny
the FTP-less a few meager table scraps?

Scotty