davidl@tekig.UUCP (David Levadie) (12/01/84)
because, as should be obvious to anyone with a FRAGMENT of intelligence (this obviously excludes all you silly little traffic cops who keep complaining monotonously) there are VERY FEW if ANY netizens who read net.wanted.sources to see if there's anything they can give away!!! (If your self-image of charitability has been damaged, you may now wail indignantly.) Therefore, the probability of whoever has GOT a source that you're looking for seeing your request on net.wanted.sources or is *** VANISHINGLY *** small... since if they have the what you want, they have to be a net reader (excludes everybody that does useful work) and they have to read net.sources (excludes an additional segment) and they have to be looking to give something away (excludes 99.44% of humanity)... In FACT, you're damned lucky if somebody that's GOT a source that you want, even reads THIS newsgroup, since most people that read THIS newsgroup are (again!) reading it because they WANT something, not because they have something to offer. I hope I get some good flames out of this. I'm really sleepy and bored.
dmmartindale@watcgl.UUCP (Dave Martindale) (12/03/84)
> because, as should be obvious to anyone with a FRAGMENT of intelligence > (this obviously excludes all you silly little traffic cops who keep > complaining monotonously) there are VERY FEW if ANY netizens who > read net.wanted.sources to see if there's anything they can give away!!! > (If your self-image of charitability has been damaged, you may now wail > indignantly.) Therefore, the probability of whoever has GOT a source > that you're looking for seeing your request on net.wanted.sources or > is *** VANISHINGLY *** small... since if they have the what you want, > they have to be a net reader (excludes everybody that does useful work) > and they have to read net.sources (excludes an additional segment) > and they have to be looking to give something away (excludes 99.44% > of humanity)... > > In FACT, you're damned lucky if somebody that's GOT a source that you > want, even reads THIS newsgroup, since most people that read THIS > newsgroup are (again!) reading it because they WANT something, not > because they have something to offer. > > I hope I get some good flames out of this. I'm really sleepy and bored. Well, a minor flame: There has been a quite a bit of good software posted to net.sources, much of it by people who do useful work. I believe in exchanging software whenever possible. I read both net.sources and net.wanted.sources. However, I'm more likely to pay attention to a request for sofware that is in net.wanted.sources. After all, if you're going to be arrogant enough to post requests to net.sources, obviously against the wishes of many netters, why should I bother trying to help you out? Dave Martindale
kay@flame.UUCP (Kay Dekker) (12/08/84)
<DEBUGGER> An immediate apology for posting here: by my own argument I condemn myself, but ... This is out-of-hand already. I propose a restructuring of source-related news, viz. 1) net.sources Source, and source ONLY (on pain of incineration) posted here 2) net.wanted.sources Requests (or offers) of software posted here 3) net.sources.d This is where discussions of software, claims of bugs found, discussion of source-stuff, and POSSIBLY short bug-fixes. (Long fixes (ie big diff scripts) should be posted to net.sources with a notification in parallel here. This seems to me a way of keeping the (very useful) sources newsgroup from choking on non-germane items. Ideas, anyone? Kay. PS: if you don't hear from me for a while, have yourselves a ++merry festive season. -- "But you TOLD me to type 'rm * .o', and I DID, and it said 'rm: .o nonexistent', and ... ... mcvax!ukc!flame!ubu!kay