🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Sep27.092816.21637@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>cathyf@is.rice.edu (Catherine Anne Foulston) writes:

>>because it's lost in the
>>noise -- but it's still there.

>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?

Well, I personally wasn't suggesting that in the first place.  I only
got in on the "does Usenet cost" part.  :-)

But what I think is, just because an individual thing is lost in the
noise does not mean it isn't important.  If I go out to lunch, the
individual $4 (say) extra this costs me (over bringing a lunch) is
lost in the noise of my expenses.  Yet if costs me $2/day to bring
lunch and $6/day to go out, then going out every day costs me $1000
more a year than carrying my lunch, which is significant.  I think
everybody realizes that pound-wise, penny-foolish can be just as bad,
for an individual or an organization, as penny-wise, pound-foolish.
Ideally, you want to reduce both the small costs and the large ones
where you can.  (This may mean that I should not be spending those
thousands of dollars just to post my humble opinions to the net...)

This is not to say that I'm sure that reproaching people for stupid
cross posts helps.  I am sure I'll be putting in a kill file entry
for a certain news.admin cross-poster whose posts I don't care to
read in news.admin.

	Cathy

(p.s.  Please let's all do the net a favor by not trying to argue or
extend the lunch analogy.  Usenet is nothing like lunch.  The most
useless flamewars there are start when an analogy is taken too far.
My only point with the lunch thing was that the little expenses add up.)
-- 
Cathy Foulston + Rice University + Network & Systems Support + cathyf@rice.edu