🚀 go-pugleaf

This is a metadiscussion.  I don't consider it appropriate, so I hope
that the message gets through once and for all, and that we can get
beyond arguing personalities.



In article <1044@chinet.UUCP>, rhonda@chinet (Rhonda Scribner) writes:
>Likewise, you could hold your own discussions in sci.math where they've also
>been doing that for some months now.

I could, but I could also fit them in here and be well within the bounds
of the group's manifesto.

>				       I happen to find the discussions going
>on in this newsgroup to be quite interesting.

So what?  This isn't a newsgroup for any old topics.

>					        Much more so than any of the
>condescending pompous nonsense that you've been writing.  Who are you to tell
>us what belongs in this newsgroup?  Do you own it?

Who am I to tell you all what belongs in this newsgroup?  OK, then, I'll
TELL you who I am.

I am the person who put out the original proposal for a newsgroup to
discuss the philosophies of science and mathematics and natural language.
I am the person who collected the votes, and pushed the topic with the
various net.gods.  I am one of the people who successfully argued with
the net.gods that it should be in sci.* and not talk.*.

Now, I do not remember my exact words.  But I can assure you, there was
nothing about touch screens or computer literacy in my original list of
topics, and I tried to make it clear that we were not going to be a new
home for AI or intentionality or the like.  It never occurred to me to
make it quite clear that the forthcoming newsgroup was not supposed to
be a new home for comp.{society,risks,cog-eng} style material.

>				     Do you own it?

This group was actually supposed to be moderated, and by accident in the
renaming, it came through unmoderated.  I am currently in communication
with various backbone net.gods, and there's a good chance that it will
turned back into a moderated group, with yours truly as moderator.  Does
that answer your question?

Someone else is actually supposed to be moderator, but he is very busy
at the moment, and I would be filling in for him.  I will let in a wide
variety of articles, including stuff on things that I have absolutely no
interest in--as long as it relates to the philosophies of science, etc.

I do not like the idea of being moderator--acting responsibly and censor-
ing myself has never been my idea of fun.

>						     Some very invigorating
>discussion topics have sprung to life here, and I hope no amount of decrees
>by you from on high cause those discussions to disappear.

I'm not asking those discussions to disappear.  I am asking that they
appear in the appropriate newsgroups.  News reading software can work
wonders, but not if the posters refuse to cooperate.

>							    I personally
>don't care what you keep in your .plan file,

Don't be ridiculous.  I merely invited, in passing, anyone who wants to
try one of the world's greatest puzzles to get a copy.  I did not post a
full article about my .plan file, and only by intentionally being a bozo
about it did this brief comment of mine come back for further discussion.

>					      nor do I care about your
>overbearing critical opinions about people far more talented than yourself
>in your little book reviews.

So what?  I'm NOT complaining about the *worthiness* of people's opinions
or discussions, merely about their *appropriateness* for this newsgroup.

>			       I happen to have an interest in some of the
>fields of study you cover in your articles, but I find your ridiculous
>babbling and opinionating to be nauseating at best.

Then use the 'n' key, instead of being cloying about it.  Just don't post
articles about touch screens and the like, and don't followup to people
who do.  That's all I asked.

>						      You are entitled to
>your opinion regarding what this newsgroup is for.

And you are entitled to collect votes and form *your* own newsgroup to
discuss touch screens and mice and computer literacy etc.  As it is, such
newsgroups already exist.  This ISN'T one of them, however.

>						     Apparently that opinion
>can be summed up as whatever obnoxio@brahms.berkeley.edu has to say about
>the world at large.

No, not the world at large.  But it can be summed up, if such a thing is
ever possible, from the original descriptions that I posted and were voted
on.  If this group turns into something that was never voted on, then I
will implore the net.gods to simply remove it.

>		      But as for the rest of us who have started reading and
>participating in fruitful discussions about other topics, please leave us
>alone.

No.  Until this group takes off, with its subscribers generally in the
clear about its purpose, I will hound each and every offender without
ceasing.  I guarantee it.

Do we understand each other now?

ucbvax!brahms!weemba	Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
Without NNTP, the brahms gang itself would be impossible.--Erik E Fair