🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec16.150146.28325@linus.mitre.org>, hal@harbor.mitre.org (Hal Feinstein) writes:
|> 
|> There are literally dozens of newgroups dedicated to consider every shade of
|> opinion. Why not post to them?  And stop cross posting to sci.crypt
|> this just duplicates stuff going on in other groups  and it
|> just chews up bandwidth.  Maybe, just maybe we can get back to the 
|> original  subject: cryptography

Here Here! My Session kill button is ready to fall off.
If I want to read Insert.discussion.group.here, I will subscribe. I may
already subscribe to the group, so I don't need to see the message twice.
(restraint please) :-)

I admit that there cannot be a discussion about science without discussing 
its effects on society, but can we achieve a better signal/noise ratio? 
All of the talk about drug dealers and conspiracy is getting old.
I read this group to expand my knowledge of cryptography, and hear INFORMED  :-) :-) :-)
opinions. (Please supply references if you think someone would like to
investigate your claim) 

I am not saying that people have not been expressing informed opinions, but 
there have been some claims I have seen where a supporting reference 
would have been a nice touch. 

(Whew.... I needed to get that off my chest)

(THIS SHOULD NOT BE READ AS A FLAME. Please send all flames to Bit.Bucket)

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Young    				|	To those who don't
University of Cincinnati       			|	want to bear the cost
Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering |  	of changing society,
mail location 30				|	will bear the brunt
Cincinnati, OH. 45221				|	of the society they
(513)556-0904 					|	will not recognize.
						|
cyoung@thor.ece.uc.edu				|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's worth mentioning that some of us who use threaded newsreaders
such as trn don't realize how annoying excessive cross-posting is
to others, particularly if we have both the substantive groups
and the irrelevant ones in our active base.

It's more a matter of forming the correct habits than deliberate
offense in most cases. I'm just getting into the habit of checking
the headers when responding to a message, and I'm far from perfect
at it as, I assume, are many others.

Maybe the newsreader software writers should add an extra, optional
question to the dialogue, asking if the writer of a reply wants
to send it to ..... newsgroups, and giving him a chance to correct
the address list.

Or maybe trn and other groups have such a feature, and I just haven't
found it yet.

David