avi@pegasus.UUCP (11/03/83)
My last question was meant to be humorous. I like Tim Maroney, although I
disagree with much of what he says -- especially in the great smoking debate on
net.flame. My last question elicited comments and gave a joking example to get
people started. I did not mean to insult Tim or Mormons. People chose to
respond with general comments, and i have tried to inmclude just about
anything. The original poll question was:
5 - Any other comments such as "If it involves Mormons and is NOT by Tim
Maroney and is under 5 lines long, I won't read it".
- I read all the Mormon notes in full, as this subject is of particular
interest to me.
- I particularly dislike the inflation of articles by inclusion of
other articles. I never read anything but the "level-0" stuff
anyway.
+ Run-on paragraphs encourage me to give up early.
+ I don't read block quotations, and in general wish they weren't there
+ Block quotations are usually a sign of nitpicking rather than
substantive responses.
+ Paul Dubuc's article, though long, was one of the better ones around
here lately.
- I hate included quotes except for single ones at the beginning of the
article. (Basically reply articles should be short and cover one or two
topics and any article should make sense alone with out reference to
its precursors). Articles about J.R (bob) Dobbs must be less then 10
lines or more then 2500 lines to be read.
- The author is more important than the Subject -- that is to say I would
read an article by Tim Maroney even if it were about abortions.
- I will sometimes get sick of a subject and just "n" all the articles.
- There was a move here at [name deleted for anonimity] to have
net.religion removed from our subscription list because the articles
are so long, so I would much in favor of a flexible line limit on
articles. [Editor: I read this to mean they would prefer short ones]
- Actually, I generally read Tim Maroney, simply because he's rather
infuriating. He likes to play the same logic games that everyone else
does, but he won't admit to it. He also doesn't respond to his mail
(and I know that my path to !unc! is good). I tend to side a little
more with Paul Dubuc, but his style is irritating and he sometimes
approaches a question with a holier-than-thou atti-tude which should
be avoided by all submittors to net.religion.
- Articles by Pam Troy are pretty good. Those people who have made it
a personal crusade to discredit the Book of Mormon seem to be getting
carried away. As a whole, Mormons seem to be OK people, and not
deserving of all this abuse. The fundamentalist (maybe a better word
would be born again) Christians seem to be wearing blinders.
- I didn't read Tom Craver et al's objectivism discussion. I kept up with
the Mormon stuff for a while, but I pooped out. I usually read the long
confessionals in net.religion (i.e. statements of belief) net.religion
is quiet these days, isn't it?
- I'm more likely to read long articles by Christians, because I think
it's more likely I'll learn something. I even like many of Larry
Bickford's comments. Also, I'm less likely to read something if it's a
collage of responses to various issues; I like modularity. I also have
this bias toward good grammar; I'm more likely to read an argument I
disagree with if it's presented clearly.
- If it's over, say, 50 lines I don't care how good it is, it's too long
to waste time on. Fewer, better chosen words carry more impact anyway.
- If it IS by Tim Moronie [sic -- whatever that means to you] I will try
to resist the urge to read it.
- I do not discriminate against Tim Maroney, except for the fact that I
always read message concerning him and/or his articles. Just for fun.
Editors Final Comments: Boy, am I glad this poll is over. It was quite a bit
more work than I anticipated. I am glad I limited the question to readers of
net.religion. I want to thank everyone who took the time to share their views
with me. I apologize if I did not quote someone accurately or in context or If
I did not receive your reply. I am very happy to see that we have a healthy and
active newsgroup. All six of my POLL related articles add up to about half the
length of the article that prompted me to start this poll. I think it would be
valid to assume that people would prefer somewhat shorter articles that focus
in on a specific point. All kidding aside, I believe that this newsgroup has
carried quite a bit of serious discussion as well.
Till next poll,
--
-=> Avi E. Gross @ AT&T Information Systems Laboratories (201) 576-6241
suggested paths: [ihnp4, allegra, cbosg, hogpc, ...]!pegasus!avitim@unc.UUCP (11/05/83)
Contrary to the assertions of one claimant in Avi's poll, I DO answer my mail. Not always within the space of two weeks, but I do answer it. IF you received no reply to a letter of yours, you might start looking for other explanations before you start pinning blame on me. Haven't you ever had a message sucked into the void before? This network is incredibly unreliable. This situation is hardly ameliorated by the rapid fixing of blame, whether it is there or not. If I do not reply to a letter, send it again. Chances are that duke is down, decvax has destroyed it, or I have received a huge number of letters that week. Just be patient. I get a lot of mail, and usually consider my graduate course work to take precedence. ________________________________________________________ Tim Maroney, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill duke!unc!tim (USENET), tim.unc@csnet-relay (ARPA)