🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <12102:Dec1020:45:5990@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>, brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
|> In article <1990Dec10.073955.28681@athena.mit.edu> jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) writes:
|> >   It is entirely possible that Rich has been reading the discussion in this
|> > newsgroup, and has posted sources recently because of that discussion.
|>   [ etc. ]
|> 
|> You try to explain them by saying ``when there are enough complaints,
|> Rich posts a batch to shut people up.'' In other words, complaints cause
|> postings.

  No, I didn't "try to explain them" that way, I said that it is "entirely
possible" that that's the case.  You might notice, Dan, that in this entire
discussion, the paragraph above is the first one in which I suggested any
correlation between complaints and postings to comp.sources.unix.  I hadn't
suggested it before because I don't really believe it's very likely.  I
mentioned it in the posting from which you excerpt only to explain why the
increase in postings in the past week cannot be taken as prima facie evidence
that Rich posts to c.s.u regularly.

|> I find it more plausible that Rich doesn't bother reading every idiotic
|> complaint in this group, and people shut up when they see all the useful
|> software they get. In other words, postings cause a drop in complaints.

  I agree that it is likely that Rich has not read the complaints.  If he has
read them, I agree that it is not likely that they have had a major effect on
his rate of posting to c.s.u.  I was merely trying to point out, as I said,
that it is POSSIBLE that he has read the complaints and that they have
affected the rate of posting.  That possibility makes analysis of the
statistics at face value, without any other considerations, doubtful.

  I've been steamed about c.s.u ever since I sent him my undel2 package and
waited six months for it to get posted.  I don't complain about it because I
don't feel militantly about it one way or the other; you might have noticed
that I didn't jump into this conversation until it had been going on for
several days -- when I did finally post, it was only in response to some
really bogus logic from Ed Vielmetti that I just couldn't let pass
unchallenged :-).

  I don't consider myself one of the "motivating sources" of this discussion. 
I don't have enough time right now to take the crusade for better moderation
on my own shoulders, although I am willing to help if someone else sets up a
multiple-moderator scheme of the type that has already been discussed.  Since
I know that I can't "lead the way" right now, I'm quite content to let the
whole thing die, because I would not expect someone else to do what I am not
willing to do myself.  Since I do not consider myself one of the main
motivators of this discussion, but rather just someone who is trying to
present his own opinions because he feels they may help to clarify some
issues, I cannot respond to your comments about how people "shut up when they
see all the useful software they get" -- I could only respond to them if I had
complained in the past and intended to complain in the future.  In any case, I
will simply point out that I do not consider complaints about ridiculously long
delays between submission and posting to be "idiotic."  Furthermore, my level
of dissatisfaction with c.s.u has been pretty constant since I started to
perceive problems.  Therefore, your claim about people shutting up doesn't
quite wash with me.

|> There is no logical argument that will prove one of these theories
|> correct. Correlation does not imply cause. So stop assuming that your
|> whining is the impetus behind further postings in comp.sources.unix.

  I made no such assumption.  I simply pointed out the possibility.

  In my opinion, all of my postings have been reasoned attempts to discuss the
issue.  Your insults about how I'm "whining" and about how the complaints in
this newsgroup are "idiotic" are counterproductive and do not add anything to
the discussion.  Can we please, *please*, PLEASE discuss the ISSUES involved
and stop hurling insults?

|> > And, as I pointed out in the paragraph
|> > which you quote, the six empty months in the last twelve would seem to imply
|> > that the current rate is NOT two packages per week!
|> 
|> Jon, other people in this discussion have bothered to check their facts,
|> rather than posting a hundred lines of ``comp.sources.unix *could* be
|> slowing down, so panic panic panic!'' I suggest you gather some relevant
|> statistics before you post further drivel. No offense intended.

  What exactly do you consider <1990Dec3.064608.22544@athena.mit.edu>, Dan?  I
spent a couple hours mucking through the ls-ltR listing on uunet.uu.net to get
the statistics I posted in that message.  Furthermore, when someone claimed
that only "two students at Yale" were protesting the current status of c.s.u,
I spent an hour going through the entire discussion in order to objectively
verify that that claim was just not true.

  I find it amusing that you call my complaints "idiotic" and tell me that I'm
"whining" and tell me that I'm posting "drivel," and then say, "No offense
intended."  No offense taken, Dan, but not because you didn't intend it; I
feel to see how your insults can be intended to do anything but insult.  I
don't take offense at your insults because I stopped long ago expecting people
on the Usenet to be able to discuss things rationally.  I keep hoping, but I
no longer expect my hopes to be fulfilled.

-- 
Jonathan Kamens			              USnail:
MIT Project Athena				11 Ashford Terrace
jik@Athena.MIT.EDU				Allston, MA  02134
Office: 617-253-8085			      Home: 617-782-0710