🚀 go-pugleaf

I can't agree more with Lauren's comments. One thing that always
made me sick of usenet was the repetitive comments. Moderated
newsgroups like TELECOM (a moderated group) takes on the following
role:

1) pick the best submission to post ("Bullwinkle's middle initial was "J.")

2) Thank everybody else who posted

"Thanks go to Saul Jaffe <Jaffe@BLUE>
	     Mel Pleasant <Pleasant@RED>
	     Liz Sommers <Sommers@USENIX>
	     and Jerry Price <JP@YOURFAVORITEHOST.UUCP>

for saying the same thing".

The ARPANET has much experience with moderated groups, and most of us
agree that they are far superior to immediate (shout) lists for most
high volume applications. I have been a moderator for 6 years or
so, and have seen enough of the ARPANET traffic to know that moderation
is best for large volume lists.

--jsol

In article <6582@bu-cs.BU.EDU>, jsol@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Jon Solomon)
describes how ARPAnet moderated groups deal with repetitive submissions
by posting the best one, with a list of authors who said the same thing.

Of course, to do this, the moderator can't send out anything until
the definitive reply arrives.  He has to add *delay*.

Isn't timelyness one of the stated goals of Stargate?

If moderated groups are so great, then (as Brian Reid once asked)
why do they have poor readership?

Maybe the proper function of a moderator is to attach his recommendation
to the best articles, giving them priority in transmission and viewing,
rather than filtering out the worst articles.  We want to encourage
the best quality, instead of merely enforcing a minimum quality level.

Don Speck   speck@vlsi.caltech.edu  {seismo,rutgers,ames}!cit-vax!speck

It has been suggested that a moderator choosing the "best"
items, and listing the names of others who said the same
thing would cause a dealy while the moderator waited for the
definitive piece. 

Not so. A Usenent Moderator and an ordinary Editor in print
communication are essentially the same thing. The newspaper
editor still gets a paper out every day, even though he has
given you only 40% of what he had avaialable.
The periodicity could be the same, just condensing
repetitive stuff -- condensing it all the way to a list of
names on occasion. You don't wait for definitive articles to
publish a paper, you wait for the press deadline. Then you
go with the best of what you've got.

But unlike commercial publications who make money by serving
the interests of specific populations newsgroups are
essentially non-commercial, volunteer public service
facilities. They are more reminiscent of the university
student newspaper than commerical publishing. I know in
Canada it is virtually pointless to sue a student paper for
liable because they have no money to speak of, you'd never
get damages even if you proved the intent of a piece was
defamatory.

I think *International* law is ultimately going to have to
address the problem of communication media that span the
world. I.E. there has to be some clear statements about what
the international community considers appropriate to
transmit between countries. Likewise, there will always be
local controls on distrubution which cannot backfire on the
foreign source.

I would not carry a posting on my machine from anybody that
advocated, for instance, burning Jews or encouraged people
to blow up airplanes or plant bombs in railway cars. However
there probably are countries where this would be acceptable.
Let the site be governed by the laws of the area -- just
like a newspaper -- and transmission be governed by the laws
of the world.

But really, libel law is not a big problem. Liable
prosecutions are few and far between, convictions even
rarer. If stargate's mandate is to facilitate discussion of
ideas, extremely defamatory material can be justified as in
"the public interest". For Stargate to be sued, the intent
(on Stargate's part) to defame and libel an individual would
have to be proven. If Stargate doesn't even read what goes
through its transmission facilities, this would be quite
unlikely. Newspapers carry a caveat on letters pages "The
opinions expressed here are those of the author, not the
paper". That defines the public interest of the letters page
making it almost entirely immune from libel suits except in the
case of systematic and repeated deliberate abuse.

Let Common Sense rule over Common Paranoia. Newspapers very,
very rarely get sued for libel even when deliberately
defaming people -- because that's their job. I've never
heard of a libel suit over a letter to the editor. And
usenet is like a publication which exclusively carries
letters to the editor.

In order to increase quality, individuals might consider
trying to run publictions on the net, just like a print
periodical but with no presses. Mailing lists already work
much like that. Is there any reason not to charge a
subscription to the reader who wants a particular "magazine"
type service delivered to him? 

The glory of the net is the fact of user-defined standards,
rather than editor-mediated standards. Send e-mail to
posters who annoy you and let them know how you feel,
encourage them to improve their work if you can. Let's not
try to make the net an exclusive club which lives up to
"our" standards -- whoever "we" are. Lots of high quality
media already exist (and will come to exist in electronic
versions of some sort). But usenet is different. Its very
open-ness opens new, as  yet untapped possibilities. Let's
not throw out those future possibilities because some jerk
might sue somebody! 

In article <7041@orchid.UUCP>, imprint@orchid.UUCP writes:
> It has been suggested that a moderator choosing the "best"
> items, and listing the names of others who said the same
> thing would cause a dealy while the moderator waited for the
> definitive piece. 
> 
> Not so. A Usenent Moderator and an ordinary Editor in print
> communication are essentially the same thing. The newspaper
> editor still gets a paper out every day, even though he has
> given you only 40% of what he had avaialable.
>...

Sure newspaper editors get papers out.  But no newspaper maintains the
breadth of opinion that an unmoderated newsgroup does.  If you want a
decent range of opinion, you end up having to go to a library and scan
dozens of papers.  Newsgroup moderators are walking illustrations of
the problems of unchecked power.  In order to make them comparable to
newspaper editors there would have to be dozens of separate moderated
newsgroups on the same subject.  Sure there are some benevolent moderators,
but there are also those who go on vacation for a month leaving their
group in limbo, purposely delay messages to cut down on the flow of
traffic, choose to edit away controversal signatures, or even drop on
the floor copyrighted messages.  Of course moderators are human and
have their own problems of overwork and wanting to avoid legal
complications.  But this does not help the free flow of opinion.
(For that matter, according to my cat Galileo, history shows it
doesn't help the free flow of fact either.)

In many ways, usenet was a unique utopian experiment.  Twenty years
from now, you will only find it in the history books (check next to
the Oneida colony).  You will tell your children about a free network
where people all over the country/world discussed whatever they wanted to.
Once they get over the shock of the concept, they will ask you why it
was destroyed.  I have no idea what you will reply.

---------------- BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; BACKBONE!topaz!webber)

In article <181@brandx.klinzhai.RUTGERS.EDU>, webber@klinzhai.RUTGERS.EDU (Webber) writes:
> In article <7041@orchid.UUCP>, imprint@orchid.UUCP writes:
> > It has been suggested that a moderator choosing the "best"
> > items, and listing the names of others who said the same
> > thing would cause a dealy while the moderator waited for the
> > definitive piece. 
> > 
> > Not so. A Usenent Moderator and an ordinary Editor in print
> > communication are essentially the same thing. The newspaper
> > editor still gets a paper out every day, even though he has
> > given you only 40% of what he had avaialable.
> >...
> 
> In many ways, usenet was a unique utopian experiment.  Twenty years
> from now, you will only find it in the history books (check next to
> the Oneida colony).  You will tell your children about a free network
> where people all over the country/world discussed whatever they wanted to.
> Once they get over the shock of the concept, they will ask you why it
> was destroyed.  I have no idea what you will reply.
> 
> ---------------- BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; BACKBONE!topaz!webber)

Gee, it seems to me that Usenet still 'is'.  Here again we have the
misperception that Usenet is free.  To your particular site, it may be:
for us it essentially is (the RM03 we use was bought with out PDP 11/70
over 8 years ago), but it isn't for everyone.

How do you think Usenet stuff gets from Texas to Rutgers? Somebody makes
either a long-distance phone call (and pays for it directly) or uses a wire
that SOMEBODY ELSE is paying for (Arpanet, leased lines, etc).

I recall that once upon a time that decvax had a phone bill of $100,000.00
per year (I think that was right).   It's nice that DEC has that money.
But sooner or later some beancounter at some backbone is going to wonder
why so much tribute is being paid to AT&T - and boom goes Usenet,
either in toto or the 'talk.*' and 'rec.*' groups.

If Usenet 'collapses', it will be from its own sheer weight.  I am fully
in favor of the most personal freedom possible, but I also know that one
cannot rely upon manna from heaven to pay the bills.

Stargate is a good place to start searching for an alternative distribution
method.  Maybe we will find out just how important Usenet is to people when
they start to consider its cost.

Besides, Usenet isn't the only game in town BOB, if  you want 'complete'
freedom, then go out an buy yourself a PC/AT or some such box, a LOT
of hard disk and a modem or two, and run the Usenet software in whatever
fashion you wish.  That is how Usenet has grown.

If you don't like Stargate, then don't participate.  I say lets give it a
chance - and I thank Lauren and the others who have spent much time and
effort to take a pie-in-the-sky idea and turn it into hard reality.

-- 
Shouter-To-Dead-Parrots @ Univ. of Texas Computation Center; Austin, Texas  
	clyde@ngp.utexas.edu; ...!ut-sally!ut-ngp!clyde
"It's a sort of a threat, you see.  I've never been very good at them
myself, but I've told they can be very effective."

> In many ways, usenet was a unique utopian experiment.  Twenty years
> from now, you will only find it in the history books (check next to
> the Oneida colony).  You will tell your children about a free network
> where people all over the country/world discussed whatever they wanted to.
> Once they get over the shock of the concept, they will ask you why it
> was destroyed.  I have no idea what you will reply.

I do.  I'll tell them that it self-destructed due to its inability to
handle unlimited growth.  It will, you know...

"Every golden age carries the seeds of its own destruction."
-- 
"If you want PL/I, you know       Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
where to find it." -- DMR         {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

In article <5049@ut-ngp.UUCP>, clyde@ut-ngp.UUCP (Head UNIX Hacquer) writes:
> In article <181@brandx.klinzhai.RUTGERS.EDU>, webber@klinzhai.RUTGERS.EDU (Webber) writes:
> > ....
> > In many ways, usenet was a unique utopian experiment.  Twenty years
> > from now, you will only find it in the history books (check next to
> > the Oneida colony).  You will tell your children about a free network
> > where people all over the country/world discussed whatever they wanted to.
> > ...
> 
> Gee, it seems to me that Usenet still 'is'.  

I was stuck out on arpanet for a few years a couple of years ago (nice
place to transfer files, but they haven't heard the news since the
60s), and when I got back to usenet it was heaven for about half a
year and then they started that silliness about changing group names.

> ...                                                Here again we have the
> misperception that Usenet is free.  To your particular site, it may ...

Sigh.  That is free as in freedom.  I know it costs.  I also know what
`free public libraries', `free public education', `free local
calls' and `free coupons you get in the mail' cost.

> But sooner or later some beancounter at some backbone is going to wonder
> why so much tribute is being paid to AT&T - and boom goes Usenet,
> either in toto or the 'talk.*' and 'rec.*' groups. ...

Oh, you think those are the ones to go.  What if they become more
concerned about the free code their programmers are sending to
comp.sources or the free advice they are sending to comp.arch than the
worthless opinions that they are sending to rec.croquet .  If the
beancounters ever see what is going on, the phone bills will be the
least of the problems.  Considering the amount of `non-work-related
computing' that goes on at most sites, I think the systems people have
the beancounters pretty much under control (after all, the
beancounters would be lost without their computer support -- indeed
the large market in computers is due to the beancounters trying to
cover up their mistakes).

> Besides, Usenet isn't the only game in town BOB, if  you want 'complete'
> freedom, then go out an buy yourself a PC/AT or some such box, a LOT
> of hard disk and a modem or two, and run the Usenet software in whatever
> fashion you wish.  That is how Usenet has grown.

Hmmm.  If I read this right, you are telling me to go and build my own
net if I don't like the way this one is hobbling.  Nice thought - and I
suppose everyone that doesn't like the current government (in the whatever
country they happen to be) should leave there too.

Incidently, it is interesting that you didn't come up with an
alternative source of uncensored opinion/dialogue on the scale of
usenet.  Perhaps the anthropologists could get grants to fund usenet
just to watch how it evolves.  I wonder how many computer marketing
groups have links just to keep in touch.  Usenet was qualitatively
different from every thing else that was happening in the world
(perhaps the endangered species act applies). 


------------------- BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; BACKBONE!topaz!webber)

In article <7967@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
> Unfortunately, there *is* a legal reason to do it:  real, true broadcasts
> and point-to-point phone calls are *not* identical in the eyes of the law.
> There is a lot of uncertainty as to just how Stargate would be treated if
> it came to a court case, but it resembles a radio broadcast a whole lot
> more than it resembles a phone system.

If the basis for treating a phone call differently is that the phone call
is expected to be private, then there is certainly no relevance to
phone calls with 1000's of people on both end.  With many calls going
over microwave these days, it would be interesting to know on what
other basis one would invoke phone law for Usenet and not for Stargate.

> To the extent that your argument holds water at all, what it shows is that
> our current scheme is legally dubious:  if what we are doing is truly
> broadcasting, then laws about libel etc. most assuredly do apply, and the
> only thing that saves us is the lack of any central organization to be sued.

Actually, something else protects us.  There is no way you could ever
establish a chain of evidence connecting me to the message appearing
on your screen now.  The sooner lawyers realize that computers are
part of a world that has nothing to do with their world, the better
for all concerned.

> ...                   The people behind Stargate evidently don't consider
> either their necks or Stargate's to be expendable.

Well, I hardly consider Stargate indispensable.  Particularly if it
buys Usenet more legal trouble than it had before.  So far it seems to
want to evade responsibility by setting up moderators to be clay
pigeons (with obvious responsibility for what they forward).  Also it
will expose Usenet to the beancounters by forcing people to enter into
contractual relations with Stargate in order to benefit from its existance.
It is even messing up the technical groups: what will become of all the
sources posted on the condition that no commericial use is made of
them?  One would think that Stargate is benefitting commericially from
anything it broadcasts.

> I would expect that Stargate would eventually have paid legal counsel, by
> the way.  See above comments on central organizations:  any visible central
> point is just asking for lawsuits, and does have to be prepared for the
> possibility.

Certainly the need to hire lawyers is a great reason to avoid
centralized control.

----------------------- BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!topaz!webber)

  The law has its reasons, which reason knows nothing of.
                           (corruption of a saying of Blaise Pascal)

In article <7960@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>Frankly, most of the backbone sites would be delighted to pass the whole
>job to somebody else.  There is a distinct lack of volunteers for massive
>phone bills, massive system load, clogged communications lines, and
>regular public abuse.

If any backbone site is spending too much on netnews, it should gradually
pare down its news flow to a level which it can comfortably support.
Otherwise, when the budget crunch comes it may force a complete cutoff of
news, causing much more disruption than a gradual reduction would.

It's simply bad network policy for a backbone site to spend more on news
than it can afford.

-- 
Jim Olsen	olsen@xn.ll.mit.edu
		...!{mit-eddie,seismo,linus,lll-crg}!ll-xn!olsen

In article <205@brandx.klinzhai.RUTGERS.EDU>, webber@klinzhai.RUTGERS.EDU (Webber) writes:
> Actually, something else protects us.  There is no way you could ever
> establish a chain of evidence connecting me to the message appearing
> on your screen now.

Nonsense.  You get called as a witness (there's no "5th amendment"
in civil matters) and asked.  If you lie you risk being discovered
sometime, and that's perjury.  Believe it or not, almost no-one
(you included) is willing to risk a serious criminal offence for
the purposes of avoiding liability in a civil action, it's simply
not worth it.

> The sooner lawyers realize that computers are
> part of a world that has nothing to do with their world, the better
> for all concerned.

If anything was really needed to demonstrate how meaningless your postings
have all been, this is it.

There is nothing in the world that has "nothing to do with their [lawyers]
world".  Nor will there ever be.  Nor should there ever be.  Lawyers
decide what is part of their world, and its in their own interests to
expand that as much as possible.

Just as computer scientists get to decide what is relevant to the
computer world .. what would you think if your local plumber told
you that the sooner that computer scientists realized that computers
have nothing to do with washing machines the better .. especially if
you just happened to be in the process of creating code for a
washing machine controller chip.

Please return to kindergarten, and let the net continue to degrade
at its own grinding pace, instead of trying to push it down.

And as to whether the posters of articles necessarily agree that they
are a good thing to have posted .. nonsense .. I'm sure that in about
5 minutes I'll be certain that this was not an intelligent idea at
all, if only this newsgroup was moderated the moderator could dump
this trash into the waste pile where it belongs.  Everybody would
be better off.

kre

In article <1597@munnari.oz>, kre@munnari.oz (Robert Elz) writes:
> In article <205@brandx.klinzhai.RUTGERS.EDU>, webber@klinzhai.RUTGERS.EDU (Webber) writes:
> > Actually, something else protects us.  There is no way you could ever
> > establish a chain of evidence connecting me to the message appearing
> > on your screen now.
> 
> Nonsense.  You get called as a witness (there's no "5th amendment"
> in civil matters) and asked.  If you lie you risk being discovered
> sometime, and that's perjury.  ...

Well I would certainly not advocate perjury.  However, with all the
large companies handling news, one would not thing that lack of a
wealthy target would justify the lack of suits.  While my partly baked
idea may have oversimplified the defense, I still think a lawyer would
make something of the unreliability of anything that is in a computer.
As Jean Giraudoux was want to remark: `No poet ever interpreted nature
as freely as a lawyer interprets truth'.  Of course, they might also
be interested in the classic CMU study showing that people flame more
online than offline.  Perhaps it is just the people smart enough to 
read news are too smart to get involved with pointless litigation.

I would still love to know how a computer system that provides news to
a thousand users is protected by the fact that it got the news off a
phone line.  I think I am not the only one with partly baked ideas.

> > The sooner lawyers realize that computers are
> > part of a world that has nothing to do with their world, the better
> > for all concerned.
>
> If anything was really needed to demonstrate how meaningless your postings
> have all been, this is it.
> 
> There is nothing in the world that has "nothing to do with their [lawyers]
> world".  Nor will there ever be.  Nor should there ever be.  Lawyers
> decide what is part of their world, and its in their own interests to
> expand that as much as possible.

Yes there should be.  It is immoral that the government attempts to
control its citizenry with rules that it is hopeless for most of them
to ever understand.  Currently we have a nation of courts and lawyers,
but not one of laws.  It may take a long time, but eventually this
will change.  Such folly can not be put up with forever.  However,
clearly the net will have to continue to persevere in the midst of
such foolishness.

However, as a step in the right direction, I think we should insist on
a complete explanation of any legal opinion that is used as a basis
for influencing network policy.

---------------------- BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!topaz!webber)

From: kre@munnari.oz (Robert Elz)
Date: 28 Apr 87 16:29:45 GMT

> Nonsense.  You get called as a witness (there's no "5th amendment"
> in civil matters) and asked.  If you lie you risk being discovered
> sometime, and that's perjury.

It is extremely hard to prove that any person sent any particular
message on a network such as this one.  Good luck in taking any form
of action against anyone when it requires that you prove said person
actually sent a message.

> There is nothing in the world that has "nothing to do with their [lawyers]
> world".  Nor will there ever be.  Nor should there ever be.  Lawyers
> decide what is part of their world, and its in their own interests to
> expand that as much as possible.

Because it is very hard to verify that any given person was actually
involved with any given event, lawyers would be very wise to rely upon
other source of income.  They may attempt to expand as much as it is
their right to, but lawyers will always be limited by the validity of
evidence presented to them.  This is not to say that there aren't
interesting questions regarding use of information propagated by
electronic means - just that such issues are more complicated when a
violation cannot be pinned on a person or even a site.

> And as to whether the posters of articles necessarily agree that they
> are a good thing to have posted .. nonsense .. I'm sure that in about
> 5 minutes I'll be certain that this was not an intelligent idea at
> all, if only this newsgroup was moderated the moderator could dump
> this trash into the waste pile where it belongs.  Everybody would
> be better off.

Who am I to argue with this statement?  Only, I enjoy the silliness
that goes on in this group.  It is better then net.bizarre or
talk.religion.misc ever were!  Thanks for the entertainment, guys!
I am sure the stargate crew is enjoying it, too!

-- 

[lear@rutgers.edu]
[{harvard|pyrnj|seismo|ihnp4}!rutgers!lear]

> Unfortunately, there *is* a legal reason to do it:  real, true broadcasts
> and point-to-point phone calls are *not* identical in the eyes of the law.
> There is a lot of uncertainty as to just how Stargate would be treated if
> it came to a court case, but it resembles a radio broadcast a whole lot
> more than it resembles a phone system.

No more so than a point to point microwave link resembles a radio broadcast.

In many ways, Stargate is similar to Pay TV. The material you see
distributed over a pay channel (sort of equivelent to a point to point
link in that two identifiable parties contract to exchange the information)
would cause a *lot* of hassle for the management of a broadcast TV
station in relation to the laws on transmission of "obscene" material.

The term "broadcast" has a very different *legal* meaning than the
term "transmit" when you are talking about communications law.
A "broadcaster" (in the radio example) is making information
available to the public without entering into a contractual
obligation with that public for specific identifiable reception
of that information.

In article <554@aramis.RUTGERS.EDU>, lear@aramis.RUTGERS.EDU (eliot lear) writes:
> ...                                 Only, I enjoy the silliness
> that goes on in this group.  It is better then net.bizarre or
> talk.religion.misc ever were!  Thanks for the entertainment, guys!
> I am sure the stargate crew is enjoying it, too!

If they were enjoying it, why would they be so dead-set on creating a
net where it could never have happened? 

Then again, perhaps, after reading my messages they have realized how
ill-advised their plans were and are at this very moment attempting to
figure out if there is anyway they can undo the damage they have already
done to the net (and are just too sheepish to tell us so).

------------ BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!topaz!webber)

          Silence is the virtue of fools.

                              De Dignitate et Augmentis Scientiarium
                              pt. 1, bk. vii, ch. 31 (ed. 1640, trans.
                              Gilbert Watts) by Francis Ba<<<

In article <522@aramis.RUTGERS.EDU> webber@aramis.RUTGERS.EDU (Webber) writes:
>Of course, if you want someone else's idea of quality, there are
>professionally edited publications on every subject covered by usenet
>(well, maybe there isn't one about stargate yet).  The libraries are
>full of them and they don't cost a cent (that is a cent more than the
>taxes you are already paying).
>----------------- BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; BACKBONE!topaz!webber)

I have yet to find a professionally editied publication that deals with
the technical aspects of computing on as Masscomp computer. If you find
one, please send me a note so I can inform the people who read 
comp.sys.masscomp. Responses that mention unix or 68000-based computers
do not deal with the real-time or data-acquisition aspects of these
computers and it is the consideration of all these factors that make
the need for the newsgroup necessary. 

I chose to set it up as moderated because many Masscomp users are not 
on usenet, and have to have the items in the newsgroup mailed to them 
directly. Also, I believe that removing redundancy is simply good stewartship
of the usenet resource. A moderated newsgroup affords this; an unmoderated 
one does not. As a moderator, I do not tend to enforce my ideas of quality,
but simply attempt to provide a conduit between users. I grant that this is a
monitored flow that will sometimes have my comments added in, but often 
that takes care of the query or stimulates other thoughts.

Stan Barber, moderator of comp.sys.masscomp



-- 
Stan	     uucp:{killer,rice,hoptoad}!academ!sob     Opinions expressed here
Olan         domain:sob@rice.edu                            are ONLY mine &
Barber       CIS:71565,623   BBS:(713)790-9004               noone else's.

In article <192@brandx.klinzhai.RUTGERS.EDU> webber@klinzhai.RUTGERS.EDU (Webber) writes:
>
>It is exactly the realization that we were loosing net.sources (according to
>the note of the moderator of the new comp.sources.d) that made me feel
>things had just gotten out of hand.

comp.sources.d is not moderated to my knowledge. comp.sources.unix and
comp.sources.misc are. comp.sources.wanted is not. Please get the information
right!

[On code sent via mod.sources vs. net.sources]
>I always figured it was a matter of choosing to share with people who
>were capable of judging code for themselves versus sharing with people
>who had to rely on a moderator.  Also, doubtless many people would be
>puzzled as to what service the moderator was supplying that was worth
>the inconvenience he so often causes.
>

I don't know what kind of time you have to evaulate sources sent over
the net. You must have much more than I do. I have megabytes of net.sources
that are waiting for spare time to be evaulated. Generally, I try the
mod.sources stuff first and most of the time (>90%) it works. I cannot
say that about net.sources stuff.

Also, you say nothing about the mod.sources archive services. I guess that
is an unimportant service offered by the moderator.


>-------------------- BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; BACKBONE!topaz!webber)


Stan Barber


-- 
Stan	     uucp:{killer,rice,hoptoad}!academ!sob     Opinions expressed here
Olan         domain:sob@rice.edu                            are ONLY mine &
Barber       CIS:71565,623   BBS:(713)790-9004               noone else's.

In article <1597@munnari.oz>, kre@munnari.oz (Robert Elz) writes:
> In article <205@brandx.klinzhai.RUTGERS.EDU>, webber@klinzhai.RUTGERS.EDU (Webber) writes:
>> [we are protected by lack of evidence connecting person to posting]

> Nonsense.  You get called as a witness [...] and asked.  If you lie
> you risk being discovered sometime, and that's perjury.  Believe it
> or not, almost no-one (you included) is willing to risk a serious
> criminal offence for the purposes of avoiding liability in a civil
> action, it's simply not worth it.

Really?

What are the alternatives?  If I lie, there is possibly some chance
(very slim, in my opinion) that anyone can prove it's a lie.  But if I
don't lie, <generic-big-company> will bankrupt me making me fight some
stupid lawsuit.  Some choice.

What is the penalty for perjury?  Perhaps an expected-value analysis is
called for.

(This is not to say I actually would deny making any of my postings!
Much safer to simply avoid the problem by not pushing the limits of
what's ok.)

					der Mouse

				(mouse@mcgill-vision.uucp)

In article <124@academ.UUCP>, sob@academ.UUCP (Stan Barber) writes:
> In article <522@aramis.RUTGERS.EDU> webber@aramis.RUTGERS.EDU (Webber) writes:
> >Of course, if you want someone else's idea of quality, there are
> >professionally edited publications on every subject covered by usenet
> >(well, maybe there isn't one about stargate yet).  ...
> I have yet to find a professionally editied publication that deals with
> the technical aspects of computing on as Masscomp computer. If you find
> one, please send me a note so I can inform the people who read 
> comp.sys.masscomp. Responses that mention unix or 68000-based computers
> do not deal with the real-time or data-acquisition aspects of these
> computers and it is the consideration of all these factors that make
> the need for the newsgroup necessary. 

My news source has only 5 articles from your group.  The first was a
14 line request about some mysterious program called `top' from some
user (sent 1 May 87).  The second was 72 lines written by you summarizing
some users group meeting (dated 3 May 87).  The third was 67 lines written
by you continuing the summary (dated 4 May 87).  The fourth was 13
lines written by you about the X window system.  The fifth and last
was a 28 line message asking about some multi-machine configuration problems
(dated 8 May 87).  I don't remember seeing anything specific to
real-time data-acquisition.  I would think that a group on such a
topic would be much more interesting.  Unless masscomp is one of these wierd
closed-system/no-source/bad-manual systems, I am hard put to figure out
what you are up to out there (aside from generating messages for your group).
[Incidently, your signature line on the group indicates that you are
president of the Masscomp User's Group -- don't they have a newsletter?]
[By the way, do you archive your group?]


> I chose to set it up as moderated because many Masscomp users are not 
> on usenet, and have to have the items in the newsgroup mailed to them 
> directly. Also, I believe that removing redundancy is simply good stewartship
> of the usenet resource. A moderated newsgroup affords this; an unmoderated 
> one does not. As a moderator, I do not tend to enforce my ideas of quality,
> but simply attempt to provide a conduit between users. I grant that this is a
> monitored flow that will sometimes have my comments added in, but often 
> that takes care of the query or stimulates other thoughts.

I would love to hear/see all these redundant messages you have been
filtering out.  Perhaps 60 users recently asked if anyone had gotten
`top' to work?  Or perhaps the microvax/masscomp configuration has
spawned hundreds of requests about how to get it working?

I fail to see why it is necessary for you to moderate the usenet
discussion in order for you to forward it to non-usenet users.

Certainly it is possible to answer queries and stimulate discussion without
forcing all of it to go through you first.

In any event, the usenet is a conduit, a moderator is more properly
termed a bottleneck.

---------------------------- BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu)

In article <125@academ.UUCP>, sob@academ.UUCP (Stan Barber) writes:
> In article <192@brandx.klinzhai.RUTGERS.EDU> webber@klinzhai.RUTGERS.EDU (Webber) writes:
> >
> >It is exactly the realization that we were loosing net.sources (according to
> >the note of the moderator of the new comp.sources.d) that made me feel
                             ^^ should have been `ON the new ...'
> >things had just gotten out of hand.
> 
> comp.sources.d is not moderated to my knowledge. comp.sources.unix and
> comp.sources.misc are. comp.sources.wanted is not. Please get the information
> right!

Sigh, more a matter of getting the typing right.  My mistake.  Even 
proof-reading my own copy, I tend to see what I meant instead of what I
actually typed. (Incidently, also apologies for typing `loosing'
instead of `losing', as was kindly pointed out to me in a mail message).

> [On code sent via mod.sources vs. net.sources]
> >I always figured it was a matter of choosing to share with people who
> >were capable of judging code for themselves versus sharing with people
> >who had to rely on a moderator.  Also, doubtless many people would be
> >puzzled as to what service the moderator was supplying that was worth
> >the inconvenience he so often causes.
> >
> 
> I don't know what kind of time you have to evaulate sources sent over
> the net. You must have much more than I do. I have megabytes of net.sources
> that are waiting for spare time to be evaulated. Generally, I try the
> mod.sources stuff first and most of the time (>90%) it works. I cannot
> say that about net.sources stuff.

It hardly matters that 90%+ of the mod.sources code works (although I doubt
that that is true considering how little `working code' I have seen
over the years).  More than 90% of the source that moves across the net
is useless or easily cons'd up should a need arise.  The few programs
that are actually worth storing are worth spending enough time with so
that they can be fixed/extended as things change.  The only programs
that don't need to be changed are those that don't need to be used.

> Also, you say nothing about the mod.sources archive services. I guess that
> is an unimportant service offered by the moderator.

It is certainly an important service.  However, it has nothing to do with
whether or not a group is moderated.  The net is in desparate need of
archivers.  Near as I can tell, the first hundred messages in news.stargate,
the discussion of its creation, and various other messages posted by
the people currently messing up stargate that explained their policies have
been lost to the net forever.

--------------------- BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!topaz!webber)

In article <229@brandx.klinzhai.RUTGERS.EDU> webber@klinzhai.RUTGERS.EDU (Webber) writes:
> Near as I can tell, the first hundred messages in news.stargate,
> the discussion of its creation, and various other messages posted by
> the people currently messing up stargate that explained their policies have
> been lost to the net forever.
> 
> --------------------- BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!topaz!webber)

If your site has purged the first hundred postings, that is a local problem,
speak perhaps to your news administrator.  I've got all 150+ of them here.
Unfortunatly, the group has lately become somewhat tedious with ~50% of the
postings coming from one self-appointed stargate heckler.

I'm not pleased with the direction stargate has chosen, but I've said so once
or twice and am waiting to see what really happens...

Does anyone have a status report?  Has anyone bought the magic boxes?  Is
anyone receiving the service?  Should I go out and buy me a dish?


-- 
George Robbins - now working for,	uucp: {ihnp4|seismo|rutgers}!cbmvax!grr
but no way officially representing	arpa: cbmvax!grr@seismo.css.GOV
Commodore, Engineering Department	fone: 215-431-9255 (only by moonlite)

In article <1870@cbmvax.cbmvax.cbm.UUCP> grr@cbmvax.UUCP (George Robbins) writes:
>I'm not pleased with the direction stargate has chosen, but I've said so once
>or twice and am waiting to see what really happens...
>
>Does anyone have a status report?  Has anyone bought the magic boxes?  Is
>anyone receiving the service?  Should I go out and buy me a dish?

decwrl has signed up and paid for the service. We have received one of the
two magic boxes, and we have received some software. We have bought a dish,
which is currently sitting gace down on the roof of our building awaiting
some approvals by a structural engineer and by the city zoning commission.
I expect that we will have all of the hardware installed and in place by
middle June or early July. You may rest assured that as soon as we start
getting the service that we will report on it.

I am a little afraid that the 6-month "trial period" will be mostly over
before we get our setup installed and working, which will prevent our
experiences from having any effect on the results of the trial.

Brian

In article <1870@cbmvax.cbmvax.cbm.UUCP>, grr@cbmvax.cbm.UUCP (George Robbins) writes:
>...
> If your site has purged the first hundred postings, that is a local problem,
> speak perhaps to your news administrator.  I've got all 150+ of them here.

Exquisite.  With a flow of 2 meg per day, few sites can afford even
tape backups of news.  How do you want requests for your archived
stargate material formatted?   I have heard a rumour that long ago
stargate people actually posted material on their project here.

> Unfortunatly, the group has lately become somewhat tedious with ~50% of the
> postings coming from one self-appointed stargate heckler.

What other kind is there but `self-appointed'.  Who do you think
should be appointing hecklers?  If there are better stargate hecklers
on the net, I am perfectly willing to yield my position.

Incidently, Chamber's Etymological English Dictionary (1968), defines:
          heckle, hek'l, v.t. to comb: to ply with embarrassing
                  questions (as at an election). - n. the same
                  as hackle - n. heck'ler. [M.E. hekelen.]

If my questions are embarassing, it is only because others have done
foolish things.  They seem to take the opinion that instead of attempting
to defend their mistakes, they will simply wait until all trace of
messages disagreeing with their policies have passed from the memory
of the net (hence, they don't maintain archives on their machines).

>...
> Does anyone have a status report?  Has anyone bought the magic boxes?  Is
> anyone receiving the service?  Should I go out and buy me a dish?

So far, the only reply that I have seen to your request was from a
customer of stargate.  It will be interesting to see if they will
come out of their hole, even to answer such a simple question.

------------------- BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!topaz!webber)

Purely in the interest of correct communication in the American
English language, and to disabuse the falsely righteous.  (Of
c o u r s e ,  I couldn't be talking about  y o u .)  I rarely
get around to this group any more.

In article <236@brandx.rutgers.edu> (somebody) writes:
>Incidently, Chamber's Etymological English Dictionary (1968), defines:
>          heckle, hek'l, v.t. to comb: to ply with embarrassing
>                  questions (as at an election). - n. the same
>                  as hackle - n. heck'ler. [M.E. hekelen.]

Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, World
Publishing Company:
	heck.le (hek'l) vt. -led, -ling [ME. hekelin] to harass (a
	speaker) with questions or taunts -- heck'ler n.

Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, G. & C. Merriam Company:
	heck.le \'hek-!e!l\ vt heck.ling \-(!e!-)li!ng!\ [ME hekelen,
					 _
	fr. heckele hackle; akin to OHG hako hook -- more at HOOK]:
	to harass and try to disconcert with questions, challenges,
	or gibes: BADGER. \fB syn \fR see BAIT --
	heck.ler \-(!e!)l!e!r\ n

[ed note: for want of 8 bits, !e! is a "schwa", or upside-down e, the
generic vowel sound (my phrasing).  !ng! is, of course, the combined
n-g symbol ("hang"), the "ng" sound.]

[Who, me?  Being righteous about righteousness?  Nah...]

	Joe Yao		jsdy@hadron.COM (not yet domainised)
	hadron!jsdy@{seismo.CSS.GOV,dtix.ARPA,decuac.DEC.COM}
{arinc,att,avatar,cos,decuac,dtix,ecogong,kcwc}!hadron!jsdy
     {netex,netxcom,rlgvax,seismo,smsdpg,sundc}!hadron!jsdy

In article <228@brandx.klinzhai.RUTGERS.EDU> webber@klinzhai.RUTGERS.EDU (Webber) writes:
>Unless masscomp is one of these wierd closed-system/no-source/bad-manual systems,
>I am hard put to figure out what you are up to out there (aside from generating
>messages for your group).
It is a Multibus-based 680X0 machine. The next generation will be VME-based.
Since your sample is 5 messages, you probably don't know much about the scope
of the group. So, I would say that you indeed would be hard put to figure out what
we are up to out here.

>[Incidently, your signature line on the group indicates that you are
>president of the Masscomp User's Group -- don't they have a newsletter?]
Yes, it is called MUSings.

>[By the way, do you archive your group?]
Yes, I distributed the first year's archive at the users' group meeting
that the summaries summarize.

>I would love to hear/see all these redundant messages you have been
>filtering out.  Perhaps 60 users recently asked if anyone had gotten
>`top' to work?  Or perhaps the microvax/masscomp configuration has
>spawned hundreds of requests about how to get it working?

Are you saying that having the noise is worth a lack of moderation?
If you are, you must have access to limitless long-distance and
gigabytes of disk-space on which to store this noise. Most Masscomp
users do not.

>
>I fail to see why it is necessary for you to moderate the usenet
>discussion in order for you to forward it to non-usenet users.
>
It is not necessary. It is just an easy way to allow others (not on USENET)
to join into the discussion. The internet has been doing this way along time.

>Certainly it is possible to answer queries and stimulate discussion without
>forcing all of it to go through you first.
>
I agree, but with moderation there is one answer written once, not 30 or
40 times. Again, you seem to opt for high noise and repetition vs. 
conservation of resources.

>---------------------------- BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu)


Stan	     uucp:{shell,rice,seismo}!soma!sob        Opinions expressed here
Olan         domain:sob@rice.edu or sob@soma.bcm.tmc.edu   are ONLY mine &
Barber       CIS:71565,623   BBS:(713)790-9004               noone else's.

In article <229@brandx.klinzhai.RUTGERS.EDU> webber@klinzhai.RUTGERS.EDU (Webber) writes:
>It hardly matters that 90%+ of the mod.sources code works (although I doubt
>that that is true considering how little `working code' I have seen
>over the years).
If we get so little `working code', why bother having sources newsgroups?
I find the moderation processes of comp.sources.unix a boon. You do not.
Start up a net.sources of your own and distribute it. Rutgers can probably
afford to allow you the pleasure of the endeavor. :-)

>[comp.sources.unix archive] is certainly an important service.  
>However, it has nothing to do with whether or not a group is moderated.
>The net is in desparate need of archivers.
Agreed, but I'd have a hard time justifying disk space to archive junk
(like appears in the old net.sources) while I could probably justify space
for comp.sources.unix since there is some element of "quality" there.

You seem to argue that quality is second to quanity.

>--------------------- BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!topaz!webber)


Stan	     uucp:{shell,rice,seismo}!soma!sob        Opinions expressed here
Olan         domain:sob@rice.edu or sob@soma.bcm.tmc.edu   are ONLY mine &
Barber       CIS:71565,623   BBS:(713)790-9004               noone else's.

In article <236@brandx.rutgers.edu> webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) writes:
>should be appointing hecklers?  If there are better stargate hecklers
>on the net, I am perfectly willing to yield my position.
Great idea! Then George can ramble on about self appointed heckler appointers
;-).

>If my questions are embarassing, it is only because others have done
>foolish things.  They seem to take the opinion that instead of attempting
>to defend their mistakes, they will simply wait until all trace of
>messages disagreeing with their policies have passed from the memory
>of the net (hence, they don't maintain archives on their machines).
[ other stuff ]
>customer of stargate. It will be interesting to see if they will
>come out of their hole, even to answer such a simple question.
As a recently hooked up Usenet site I'm afraid that even the NSA couldn't
recover any data from the hard disk at my site from the stargate people. I
have interesting looking notes from the past two weeks, but I have no hard
solid info on just what 'stargate' is except it seems to involve satellites
and decoder boxes. And oh yeah, that some people seem to have it in for them :-).

If others want an update, I'd LOVE to see one as well. If for no other reason
than to figure out why I pay to have this newsgroup fed to me.

Scott Turner

-- 
L5 Computing, the home of Merlin, Arthur, Excalibur and the CRAM.
GEnie: JST | UUCP: stride!l5comp!scotty | 12311 Maplewood Ave; Edmonds WA 98020
If Motorola had wanted us to use BPTR's they'd have built in shifts on A regs
[ BCPL? Just say *NO*! ] (I don't smoke, send flames to /dev/null)

In article <567@hadron.UUCP> jsdy@hadron.UUCP (Joseph S. D. Yao) quotes
some definitions which purport to show that the word "heckle" has the
negative connotation of harassment.  It is clear from any dictionary
worthy of the name that the original meaning is merely one of hostile
interrogation, but not necessarily with an intent to harass rather than
to inform.  The OED:

	3. trans. To catechize severely, with a view to discover the
	weak points of the person interrogated.  Long applied in Scot-
	land to the public questioning of parliamentary candidates.
	Also absol.

   By this standard any cross-examiner, interrogator, or other hostile
questioner clearly qualifies as a "heckler"; any presumption of intent
is unwarranted.  Any additional connotation is a quite modern addition
(since the OED does not even *mention* a negative connotation).

   -- David desJardins

In article <3112@soma.bcm.tmc.edu>, usenet@soma.bcm.tmc.edu (USENET maintenance) writes:
> It is a Multibus-based 680X0 machine. The next generation will be VME-based.
> Since your sample is 5 messages, you probably don't know much about the scope
> of the group. So, I would say that you indeed would be hard put to figure out what
> we are up to out here.

Well, I am glad to hear that it is just a generic workstation that
could be easily discussed in the context of comp.sys.workstations.
You are right that I had only a very limited sample to view.  Since
the creation of the group (under the comp name), my site has now seen
12 articles (of which only 2 are around).  It will be interesting to
see if there are ever enough articles posted to establish what the
group is up to.

> Yes, I distributed the first year's archive at the users' group meeting
> that the summaries summarize.

I was more interested in archives that are available via email
requests. 

> >I would love to hear/see all these redundant messages you have been
> >filtering out.  ...
> Are you saying that having the noise is worth a lack of moderation?
> ...

No.  I am saying that I would love to see these messages.  I personally
do not believe all this hypothetical noise exists.  The group just has
too little in the way of postings to give one the feeling that it is
in desparate need of moderation.  Even if all this noise does exist,
I would find it interesting to see how my own judgments of such noise
would compare to those of the moderator (elsewhere I have maintained
that there is an aspect of subjectivity in such judgements).

> >
> >I fail to see why it is necessary for you to moderate the usenet
> >discussion in order for you to forward it to non-usenet users.
> >
> It is not necessary. It is just an easy way to allow others (not on USENET)
> to join into the discussion. The internet has been doing this way along time.

I hardly see why it is easier for the moderator to post to non-usenet
people incoming messages than it is for a reader to set up a program
that grabs recent postings in a group and reposts them to non-posters.
This along with an automatic posting of incoming messages from
non-usenet could all be handled without a moderator having to
constantly thrash through 10 articles a month.  Now that is true ease.
[Of course those people off usenet have to suffer with the gateway
bottleneck, but that is probably the best they can get short of
joining usenet.]

> >Certainly it is possible to answer queries and stimulate discussion without
> >forcing all of it to go through you first.
> >
> I agree, but with moderation there is one answer written once, not 30 or
> 40 times. Again, you seem to opt for high noise and repetition vs. 
> conservation of resources.

Sounds like you are mistaking comp.sys.masscomp for rec.arts.sf-lovers .
I am all for conserving resources (or more precisely, in getting
maximum utility out of what exists), but don't see this as a justification
for moderation.  Elsewhere (in this group) I have shown how the net
could be modified such that the flow is kept within the resources
available without introducing the gross inefficiency and
inappropriateness of moderation.

-------------------------- BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu)

              Moderation is a horrible thing, Lady Hunstanton.
              Nothing succeeds like excess.

                           from: A Woman of No Importance
                                 Oscar O'Flahertie Wills Wilde (1854-1900)

In article <3113@soma.bcm.tmc.edu>, usenet@soma.bcm.tmc.edu (USENET maintenance) writes:
> In article <229@brandx.klinzhai.RUTGERS.EDU> webber@klinzhai.RUTGERS.EDU (Webber) writes:
> >It hardly matters that 90%+ of the mod.sources code works (although I doubt
> >that that is true considering how little `working code' I have seen
> >over the years).
> If we get so little `working code', why bother having sources newsgroups?

Because people that deal with computers for a living often like to
show off code that they particularly like.  Fortunately, these same
people can usually judge these kinds of postings and factor out those
they are interested in.  If a reader of a sources group is not capable
of writing/maintaining a piece of code that they get from those
groups, then they are doing a very foolish thing when they run it.  It
will be a long time before computers can safely be used by people that
don't have the time and ability to check the code out for themselves.
Moderating a sources group just heightens the illusion that it is
`safe' to run programs that one doesn't understand.

> I find the moderation processes of comp.sources.unix a boon. You do not.
> Start up a net.sources of your own and distribute it. Rutgers can probably
> afford to allow you the pleasure of the endeavor. :-)

Actually, there was an announcement in news.groups from someone at
ihnp4 a while ago saying that they were trying to do just that.
However currently the people at Rutgers are not recieving it since
although both sites are backbone, they do not speak directly to each
other.

Personally, instead of creating a funny newsgroup, I would rather set
up a distributed mailing list and then when it grows sufficiently
petition to have it turned into a newsgroup (the non-standard
newsgroup approach makes it very difficult to connect all the
interested parties as well as not giving the uninterested a chance to
see the error of their ways).

If anyone is interested in such a mailing list, send me mail and I
will start things rolling (which would include making sure that the
local systems staff will permit the mail to flow).

> >[comp.sources.unix archive] is certainly an important service.  
> >However, it has nothing to do with whether or not a group is moderated.
> >The net is in desparate need of archivers.
> Agreed, but I'd have a hard time justifying disk space to archive junk
> (like appears in the old net.sources) while I could probably justify space
> for comp.sources.unix since there is some element of "quality" there.

I would think one would use tape to archive `junk'.  Due to the usual
random human problems, the current moderator of the sources groups has
significantly reduced the bandwidth of his group.  However, this has
not impacted quality at all.

> You seem to argue that quality is second to quanity.

I argue that I would prefer to make my own `quality' judgements.  If
you want me to make yours for you also, just let me know :-)  Given 
that I am making the `quality' judgements on what I see, the net would
be best served by concentrating on bandwidth issues as simply
bits/second and not as matters of ``make sure that the groups I read
get saved and let everyone else's go to Hades''.  In a previous
message (on news.stargate), I have indicated how things could be
handled properly with current resources.

------------------ BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!aramis!webber)

In article <242@brandx.rutgers.edu> webber@brandx.rutgers.edu.UUCP writes:
>
>No.  I am saying that I would love to see these messages.  I personally
>do not believe all this hypothetical noise exists.  The group just has
>too little in the way of postings to give one the feeling that it is
>in desparate need of moderation.

	I second lifting moderation.  Here are a few more reasons:

	1)  I have posted several articles to the newsgroup (requesting
	help on various items, offering help on others) and have never
	seen them come back.  Either the moderator is killing them or my
	postings are not getting to him (might account for the lack of
	traffic?).  I'm mailing through philabs, which should have a
	valid path.

	2)  Again, the number of messages are so small that moderation is
	not going to affect much.  We have about 12 Masscomps here in this
	building, mine is the only registered machine and only 2 others
	even get the news.  Because the machine is targeted for a data
	acquisition market, many of them do not get on the net at all.
	This leads to few postings.

	3)  Perhaps lifting moderation would encourage people to post more?
	We certainly could use more information, <entity> knows that 
	Masscomp doesn't want to provide it.
-- 
Michael R. Wayne	     Voice:  (313) 322-3986 |    philabs \    
Working at (but not employed by) Ford Motor Company |    pyramid  !fmsrl7!wayne
						    | ihnp4!mb2c /    

In article <243@brandx.rutgers.edu>, webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) writes:
/ If a reader of a sources group is not capable
/ of writing/maintaining a piece of code that they get from those
/ groups, then they are doing a very foolish thing when they run it.

Hmm.. guess we better get rid of the news 2.11 distribution, I sure as hell
don't understand it...
-- 
Bill Wisner
..{sdcsvax,ihnp4}!jack!wolf!billw

In article <891@fmsrl7.UUCP> wayne@fmsrl7.UUCP (Michael R. Wayne) writes:
>
>	1)  I have posted several articles to the [masscomp] newsgroup (requesting
>	help on various items, offering help on others) and have never
>	seen them come back.  Either the moderator is killing them or my
>	postings are not getting to him (might account for the lack of
>	traffic?).  I'm mailing through philabs, which should have a
>	valid path.

The moderator (me) is not killing ANY postings UNLESS they are repetative.
I don't like noise, but I do like submissions. I would suggest you 
try a loopback test with soma to see if you CAN get mail here. I'd love
to have your submissions. I know that sites near philabs can reach me
since one of the user group officers also posts through philabs. I don't know
why you are having a problem. Perhaps you should mail them directly to
masscomp@soma.uucp (or masscomp%soma.UUCP@rice.edu).

I just looked back in the archives and indeed no articles reached me from you.
Please try again!

>	2)  Again, the number of messages are so small that moderation is
>	not going to affect much.  We have about 12 Masscomps here in this
>	building, mine is the only registered machine and only 2 others
>	even get the news.  Because the machine is targeted for a data
>	acquisition market, many of them do not get on the net at all.
>	This leads to few postings.

This is a very different arguement to the one offered by webber@rutgers.
He suggested that the Masscomp is like most 68000 boxes and posting should
go to comp.sys.workstations. I agree with your arguement, but I felt that
having the group moderated would make news group creation easier. Would you
rather not have the group at all and use comp.sys.workstations?

>
>	3)  Perhaps lifting moderation would encourage people to post more?
>	We certainly could use more information, <entity> knows that 
>	Masscomp doesn't want to provide it.

There is no evidence of this. The only conclusive evidence about the effect
of moderation deals with the reduction of noise and slowness of processing
by the moderator and the mail system. Reduction of noise is a big win.
Moderator processing is definately a problem.

>-- 
>Michael R. Wayne	     Voice:  (313) 322-3986 |    philabs \    
>Working at (but not employed by) Ford Motor Company |    pyramid  !fmsrl7!wayne
>						    | ihnp4!mb2c /    


Stan	     uucp:{shell,rice,seismo}!soma!sob        Opinions expressed here
Olan         domain:sob@rice.edu or sob@soma.bcm.tmc.edu   are ONLY mine &
Barber       CIS:71565,623   BBS:(713)790-9004               noone else's.