🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <SCOTT.92Sep14054135@nic.gac.edu>  writes:
> In article <1992Sep13.142851.18728@cube.handheld.com>
> 	jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras) writes:
> >
> >As long as (and for whatever good reasons) there is the historic
> >long and even recent moderate delays getting things through csna,
> >it is of little use for timely announcements, and so I do not fault
> >anyone for going around the system to get timely information
> >(commercial or otherwise) out.  cnsa, as it currently operates, is
> >more suited to the FAQ list, and user group schedules, rather than
> >important announcements.
> 
> What's the problem?  Do you think that csn.announce should have
> some sort of guaranteed response time?  Har har har, ho ho ho, hee
> hee hee!

Did I say I expected a guaranteed response time?  No, precisely the opposite, I  
said you cannot depend on csna for timely posts.

> 
> I suggest that the people (and there are apparently a lot of them) who
> are currently uptight about the huge, giant, tremendous, gigantic lag
> time on csn.announce look around at what their alternatives are.

The alternatives are the other csn* groups, and they have been used as such.

> csn.announce is _free_.  It is managed by a volunteer.  I've not seen
> anything where the person/vendor posted to the other groups and beat
> Todd by more than about a week.

I have seen MUCH longer times.  
> 
> Try posting information in NeXTWorld.  That's only a four month
> wait.  The speediest magazines sometimes get what appears to be
> around two months in their news areas, but alot of that is pre-release
> info.  You can't call up the Wall Street Journal and put an ad in
> tomorrow's issue, no matter _how_ much you pay, why should you
> expect the same of a more or less free network?
> 
This is what electronic communication is all about.  It's beyond ridiculous to  
compare it to the printed media.  And at $9000 a year, it sure ain't free for  
me!

> Besides, I have yet to see _any_ information on csn.announce, or,
> indeed, anywhere in these newsgroups, that would make any real
> difference if it was a week late.

Your opinion.  I can see where it can make a difference.  I've seen user group  
meeting announcements for my area POSTED to csna after the meeting was over.   
For example.

>  _You_ (generic reader-you) might
> think it's important, but taken in an absolute sense, it's probably
> not.  Keep that in mind when you elect to circumvent the csn.*
> charters.  Also, before assuming that your post was ignored - try
> making sure it even got there, first.  Todd can't do much about it if
> your news or mail software is broken.  Also, remember that when you
> post to a newsgroup, that post is entered directly into your feed - it
> appears to get there quickly because it's already there.  

I run my feed, I know how it works.  Look at the message path.

> When you
> send to Todd, the post first has to battle its way upstream to
> somewhere like UUNET, and then back out to Todd.  Then it's posted,
> and it does the battle in reverse - this time with the disadvantage
> that news is generally prioritized just after Idle time so far as
> getting CPU time and connection time.  So it's going to take a couple
> days (just remember that your illegit post will also take a couple
> days to get to most places, so you really don't gain much).

A rather contrived, unrealistic, example.  A post from this site to csna will  
be e-mailed directly to Todd, UUNET is not involved.  Your post made it here in  
hours, not days.  BTW, why is my hypothetical post considered "illegit" by you?   

> 
> [BTW, I've always had _awesome_ turnaround on my posts to csn.announce.
> They hit Todd and come back to me via csna in a couple days.  I
> can't say for certain, but perhaps it's because I cultivate a
> relationship with Todd, periodically sending him email and just
> talking, rather than bitching at him.  Or, perhaps it's because
> _I_ spend the time policing my posts so that Todd doesn't have to ...
> BTW2:  This novel technique also seems to work on the archive sites ...]
> 

None of this is directed at Todd, as I said in the prior message.  I do not  
condemn someone's volunteer work, unless at a very minimum I am willing to do  
it better.  I am not, and cannot.

> Later,
> --
> scott hess <shess@ssesco.com>       <A port is a port, of course, of course>
> 12901 Upton Avenue South, #326  Burnsville, MN 55337 (612) 895-1208 Anytime!
> <You praise me with faint damns, the dragon growled.  -Castle Roogna, Xanth>

Jim