🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Sep27.092816.21637@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes) writes:

   If it is "lost in the noise", then why quantify the cost of an abberant
   poster and use that quantification to justify various forms of reproach?
   Isn't that like picking nits?

Only for the big sites where USENET resources are a very small portion
of the budget.  The problem is significant to the home/small business
crowd, where the budget is much smaller and USENET costs are
relatively much larger, even if they are smaller in absolute dollars.

So there are two ways to view the cost to sites: as absolute dollars
(which may be proportional to the number of newsgroups received) or in
terms of relative cost (which varies widely).

I think this is the point of the discussion.  For some users, USENET
is apparently free.  For other users, who own their own PC/Mac/... at
home, phone and disk costs are very directly felt, and absurd
crossposts translate into dollars that more directly come from the
pocketbook.

(I am not saying that USENET is free, just that the user's perception of
its cost varies depending upon the environment.  And that perceived cost
affects one's judgment of how serious various net infractions are.)
--
J Lee Jaap <J.L.Jaap@LaRC.NASA.Gov> +1 804/864-2148
    employed by, not speaking for, AS&M Inc, at
         NASA LaRC, Hampton VA 23681-0001