[talk.bizarre] Can something be done about 770K waste of time postings...

jsb@actnyc.UUCP (The Invisible Man) (04/27/88)

In article <22099@bu-cs.BU.EDU> madd@bu-it.bu.edu (Jim Frost) writes:
)In article <1574@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes:
)|	[flame for posting SPICE demo deleted]
)	[ much defense of SPICE posting deleted]
)								Even a
)small version of SPICE can be very useful, especially if you're an
)engineering student and don't particularly need the $3000 version.

)This is a time-old argument with pros and cons.  Why not flame at
)things like talk.bizarre which generate tons of useless material every
)day?  At least the program *does* something.  For those that
)understand what it does, it is valuable.
)
For those that understand what talk.bizarre postings do, they are valuable too.
"Useful" is a value term used here as if it were an objective property like
'red' or "divisible by 17".  Philosophers of pragmatism aside, values cannot
be derived from facts.  We already have no consensus on whether SPICE should
be posted.  Is there an algorithm to answer *that* question?  
At any rate, SPICE programs can be purchased by those who think they are 
valuable.  Postings in talk.bizarre are priceless.
-- 
		"When you awake, you will remember everything"
				jim (uunet!actnyc!jsb)

jsb@actnyc.UUCP (The Invisible Man) (05/03/88)

In article <392@pan.UUCP> jw@pan.UUCP (Jamie Watson) writes:
	[ much flaming deleted ]
)I like your mentioning of talk.bizarre, though - perhaps we should get the
)entire comp.binaries.* hierarchy aliased to talk.bizarre, which is not (thank
)God) carried in Europe, so we wouldn't have to pay for future lunacy like this.

(This is too easy...) Where do you get off flaming a news group that you don't
even receive?  Is it the title that you find offensive?  Is it those unruly
Americans you don't like?  

The crux of your argument (if it may be termed an argument, the Abuse department
is down the hall to your right) seems to be that only those froups that you
personally find useful should be allowed to exist.  Perhaps there should only
be 1 froup titled net.Jamie (moderated by yourself? or perhaps by God, whom you
feel certain agrees with you; or perhaps you feel you *are* God?)


-- 
		"When you awake, you will remember everything"
				jim (uunet!actnyc!jsb)

jc@minya.UUCP (John Chambers) (05/07/88)

In article <859@actnyc.UUCP>, jsb@actnyc.UUCP (The Invisible Man) writes:
> In article <392@pan.UUCP> jw@pan.UUCP (Jamie Watson) writes:
> 	[ much flaming deleted ]
> )I like your mentioning of talk.bizarre, though - perhaps we should get the
> )entire comp.binaries.* hierarchy aliased to talk.bizarre, which is not (thank
> )God) carried in Europe, so we wouldn't have to pay for future lunacy like this.

What are you folks talking about?  The articles in talk.bizarre are almost 
all mercifully short.  It's one of the cheapest newsgroups around.  It's
those folks that want to be taken seriously that waste our precious Mbytes.

> The crux of your argument (if it may be termed an argument, the Abuse department
> is down the hall to your right) seems to be that only those froups that you
> personally find useful should be allowed to exist.  Perhaps there should only
> be 1 froup titled net.Jamie (moderated by yourself? or perhaps by God, whom you
> feel certain agrees with you; or perhaps you feel you *are* God?)

Hey, I just typed in:
	su
	inews -C to.jc
and posted a couple of articles.  It worked fine.  Most sensible articles
I've read in a long time.  And, no, I WON'T put it in the sys file so it 
can get forwarded to you!  But I may let you have the rmgroup message, 
if you ask nice.  [;-]

-- 
John Chambers <{adelie,ima,maynard,mit-eddie}!minya!{jc,root}> (617/484-6393)

You can't make a turtle come out.
	-- Malvina Reynolds