wlim@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU (09/21/86)
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU> Our current moderator does the same thing. Why don't you find it equally objectionable? No I don't think our current moderator does the same thing. It so happens that you don't agree with him in many points. I presume you have read the messages by contributors asking JOSH not to append to their messages. There were even those who complained about him being trying to be lord of the last word. We have yet to hear such things about our current moderator. (-: On second thought, we might start to hear such things from perverse individuals. :-) His [JOSH's] replies always made sense. Only to those who are pro-libertarianism. I would have given the statement more credit if you are not a libertarian. I sincerely doubt your objectivity in this case, given your libertarian leaning. Oh, come on! I read, store, and reply to my mail on a machine that I own....mumble...mumble....mumble.... Messages are stored in all sites that are on the mailing list. If there are 50 of them, say, the total number bytes consumed is 50 times the length of a message. The correct charge for each message should be based on (1) the total amount space used in all these sites and (2) the duration the space is used. There are other cost factors too like maintenance, traffic congestion, etc. I won't even bother to discuss your precious time wasted on all this flaming, as you (like everybody else) do this on your time and on your own accord. The owners of many machines on the net(s) are willing to let people use small amounts of resources at night and on weekends to further the cause of man's knowledge. As long as they don't abuse that privilege. If a person with a tourist account were to use up megabytes of disk space for flaming over the ARPAnet and causing a bottle neck in the mailing system, he/she would lose that account almost immediately. The same applies if that person uses the account for profit or for indulging in political campaigns. I take it that you agree with my recent messages to this list? It is interesting that you now contest the LENGTH of my messages, rather than their CONTENT! I assume you wouldn't bother to do the former if you were able to do the latter. A rather presumptuous statement! I find the content of most of your messages not worth their lengths. Some of them make sense but a lot of them don't. When you can't argue against a point, instead of sounding a graceful retreat, you tend to wimp out by making some silly assumptions to make the problems go away or by digressing. Furthermore there is enough reasonable replies by other people to your messages to keep you busy for quite a while. It is hard to believe that none of them is more reasonable than yours. Libertarians like everybody else don't have a monopoly on the solutions to the all the world's problems. Neither do they have a monopoly on intelligence, reasonableness, sensibilities and wealth. Some people are already finding out that you are just going to incessantly "beat" them over the head with more and more bytes irrespective of whether you managed to convince them of your point of view. (For example, the current discussion has a high potential of being a dragged out flame war.) To avoid being dragged into a never-ending flame war with you, they keep their silence. Hence, silence does not mean consent, or in this case belief in your political philosophy. Note that this is not a problem with all libertarians, but rather with some libertarians. There are some shorter messages by libertarians that make more sense than yours. If someone who is politically neutral were to use these arguments in parties and other social functions, he/she would sound more like a reasonable and intelligent individual than an obstinate egomaniac (no offense intended). Willie ------- -------
kfl%mx.lcs.mit.edu@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU (09/21/86)
[ Due to moderator brain-damage, the reply to this message appeared
last issue. My apologies to both gentlemen. - CWM]
From: Willie Lim <WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
When JOSH was the moderator of POLI-SCI there were complaints of
him dominating the discussion by insisting on having the last word
in almost every debate that he was involved in.
Yes, he often replied to messages in the same digests they appeared
in. And if the original sender wanted to reply to his reply, it would
be several days before it would appear in the digest, at which time
JoSH's reply to the reply would appear with it.
Our current moderator does the same thing. Why don't you find it
equally objectionable? It doesn't really matter so long as you can
reply to it. You could regard it as compensation for the time he
spends moderating the list.
What ended up happening was that many people didn't feel that it
was a discussion anymore and stopped sending in their
contributions.
His replies always made sense. Non-libertarians stopped sending
messages when their last argument had been exploded. After JoSH went
away they gradually came back to the list and started broadcasting the
same arguments that had been demolished years earlier. I could reply
to almost every objection to libertarianism that I have seen by
resending messages Josh sent four or five years ago.
From the libertarian point of view, there is an explanation for
the frequent long messages on this and other mailing lists. It is
because the electronic mailing system is free. As a result
individuals do not have incentives to conserve on words and strive
for quality instead of quantity.
Oh, come on! I read, store, and reply to my mail on a machine that
I own. This machine cost me several month's savings. More valuable
yet is the time I spend reading and replying to messages. Currently
about 40 hours a week. The owners of many machines on the net(s) are
willing to let people use small amounts of resources at night and on
weekends to further the cause of man's knowledge. "Hackers" and
"randoms" have written software of enormous value and given it away
for free. Most of the electronic mail software and editing software
on the net has been written by people who wrote it to use mailing
lists like this one or to make other unofficial use of computer
resources.
What does the government have to do with any of this? Nothing,
except that they own and operate the ARPAnet. Using a machine that
happens to be on the ARPAnet is not necessarily using network
resources. The network only exists to link these machines.
Well, I send about 10k bytes of mail per day. Coast to coast off-
hours phone rates are on the order of at most 30 cents per minute for
a voice grade line. A voice grade line can carry data at about 9600
bits per second, so my mail takes less than ten seconds, or about 5
cents to send each day. Actually, since the ARPAnet leases lines
around the clock, they aren't paying any more for the lines if they
are used at night and on weekends.
I would be quite willing to pay my fair share, if there were some
way to distribute the costs that wouldn't cost a hundred times more
than the resources consumed. I am already paying far more than that
in the cost of my computer, my phone bill, by electric bill, and most
importantly, the value of my own time. I have plenty of incentives to
strive for quality rather than quantity.
I take it that you agree with my recent messages to this list? It
is interesting that you now contest the LENGTH of my messages, rather
than their CONTENT! I assume you wouldn't bother to do the former if
you were able to do the latter.
...Keith
-------