wisner@eddie.MIT.EDU (Bill Wisner) (02/25/88)
In article <1156WGRCU@CUNYVM> [god, no, not BITNET!] WGRCU@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (Bill Rubin) grumps to news.admin: >In going thru some files on system's news disk, trying to find room for new >news because the disk had filled up, I found this dribble in talk.bizarre: (article <7080@uunet.UU.NET>, newsstats@uunet.UU.NET) >> No. of $ Cost % of Cumulative >> Rank Kbytes Articles per Site Total % of Total Group >> 1 1175.9 696 36.75 3.5% 3.5% comp.sys.ibm.pc (1.7) >> 2 1066.7 948 33.33 3.1% 6.6% soc.singles (3.0) >> 3 1038.4 698 32.45 3.1% 9.7% soc.women (2.9) >> 4 1035.2 1263 32.35 3.1% 12.7% talk.bizarre (6.2) (article <1918@mind.UUCP>, greg@mind.UUCP (yes, that greg, that Nowak guy)) >>Congratulations to ALL for a FABULOUS effort. I believe 4th is the >>highest we have EVER placed. But WORK at it, damnit! 31 more KB and we >>would have beaten SOC.SINGLES! >> >>I did my part. 95 KB. Now you do yours. (back to our friend Bill) >Now, I have never read talk.bizarre, and I know there are some sites >which do not carry the talk. groups, but we have decided not to do this >here, because we feel that it is important that we carry as much as >possible. > >But when I see this kind of garbage, posted not once but three times, I >have to wonder if we are making the correct decision. I would ask if >people realize the overhead involved in each message they post, but the >obvious answer in this case is that they could care less. At minimum, >talk.bizarre postings are going to get a much shorter life at my site. This, students, is a textbook case of WHINY ADMINISTRATOR. Yes, that's right, WHINY ADMINISTRATOR. Apologies to greg. I would ask if Mr. Rubin realizes that every site is quite free to drop talk.bizarre, anytime, if it doesn't like the content. I would ask if Mr. Rubin realizes that some people, incredibly, ENJOY the newsgroup, high volume notwithstanding. I would ask if Mr. Rubin has bothered to look at another viewpoint: many find the group entertaining (if they didn't, it wouldn't rank fourth, for chrissake) and realize that USENET is quite a bit more than source code and discussions about pointer alignment or some such. I would even ask if Mr. Rubin has the tiniest shred of a sense of humor. Alas, the obvious answer in this case is no. Are all users of this network to cower in terror, every time they even dare to consider posting an article, mortally afraid that there might be too much overhead involved? I don't like comp.sys.ibm.pc, and just look at that revolting message volume. Let's remove it from the net. What? The readers? Oh. Let them read the mailing list. In short, Mr. Rubin, kindly keep your whimpering complaints to yourself rather than air them before a worldwide audience. Most of us could care less. Now, if you have a legitimate problem, I am quite certain that quite a few people would quite cheerfully offer you assistance, but this tripe? Why, do you realize what overhead was involved in transmitting your bitching to over 6,000 sites? I'm done preaching. I'll go post 96K to talk.bizarre now. Good day. ..b
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (02/25/88)
In article <8272@eddie.MIT.EDU> wisner@eddie.MIT.EDU (Bill Wisner) writes: >In article <1156WGRCU@CUNYVM> [god, no, not BITNET!] WGRCU@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU >(Bill Rubin) grumps to news.admin: >>Now, I have never read talk.bizarre, and I know there are some sites >>which do not carry the talk. groups, but we have decided not to do this >>here, because we feel that it is important that we carry as much as >>possible. >> >>But when I see this kind of garbage, posted not once but three times, I >>have to wonder if we are making the correct decision. I would ask if >>people realize the overhead involved in each message they post, but the >>obvious answer in this case is that they could care less. At minimum, >>talk.bizarre postings are going to get a much shorter life at my site. > >This, students, is a textbook case of WHINY ADMINISTRATOR. Yes, that's >right, WHINY ADMINISTRATOR. Apologies to greg. > >I would even ask if Mr. Rubin has the tiniest shred of a sense of humor. > >Alas, the obvious answer in this case is no. > >I'm done preaching. I'll go post 96K to talk.bizarre now. Good day. I have to say that Bill Rubin is right, and that what we have is a textbook case of a whiny talk.bizarre reader. I read net.bizarre when it started for a while, and there were a few good things. When I started rec.humor.funny, I read talk.bizarre for 2 months to see if I could cull anything funny, and I found only 1 item. (I'll admit I'm tough) All this would be fine if it weren't for this stuff that's going on there right now about "pumping up the volume" and trying to get the highest volume on the net. Talk.bizarre is surpassed in per reader cost only by some binary/source groups and talk.politics/religion/abortion groups. I tell you I get more and more serious every day about my idea of putting high volume groups on probation. This crazy attitude is costing everybody real money. Certain types of groups feed more volume in an upward spiral. I get my news feed locally, so up to now I haven't had much to complain about except the money I've spent on bigger disk packs. But now my feed keeps asking me to spend $1,000 on a Telebit because dialin times are too long (even for local calls!) and people who dial in for other reasons complain that it's busy too often with news calls, and ask me to get other lines. I don't know how people who feed over long distance lines can put up with it! -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (02/26/88)
> ... many find the group entertaining... How many of them are willing to help pay for it? On past evidence, damn few. > I would even ask if Mr. Rubin has the tiniest shred of a sense of humor. It's amazing how little amusement one gets out of paying large phone bills, scrambling to find more disk space, placating users who demand to know why the modems are always busy when they want to do real work, etc. You should try it some time. -- Those who do not understand Unix are | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology condemned to reinvent it, poorly. | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry
kyl@homxb.UUCP (Cindy) (02/27/88)
In article <1435@looking.UUCP>, brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: > In article <8272@eddie.MIT.EDU> wisner@eddie.MIT.EDU (Bill Wisner) writes: > >In article <1156WGRCU@CUNYVM> [god, no, not BITNET!] WGRCU@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU > >(Bill Rubin) grumps to news.admin: > >>Now, I have never read talk.bizarre, and I know there are some sites > >>which do not carry the talk. groups, but we have decided not to do this > >>here, because we feel that it is important that we carry as much as > >>possible. > >> > >>But when I see this kind of garbage, posted not once but three times, I > >>have to wonder if we are making the correct decision. I would ask if > >>people realize the overhead involved in each message they post, but the > >>obvious answer in this case is that they could care less. At minimum, > >>talk.bizarre postings are going to get a much shorter life at my site. > > > >This, students, is a textbook case of WHINY ADMINISTRATOR. Yes, that's > >right, WHINY ADMINISTRATOR. Apologies to greg. > > > >I would even ask if Mr. Rubin has the tiniest shred of a sense of humor. > > > >Alas, the obvious answer in this case is no. > > > >I'm done preaching. I'll go post 96K to talk.bizarre now. Good day. > > I have to say that Bill Rubin is right, and that what we have is a textbook > case of a whiny talk.bizarre reader. I read net.bizarre when it started > for a while, and there were a few good things. When I started > rec.humor.funny, I read talk.bizarre for 2 months to see if I could cull > anything funny, and I found only 1 item. (I'll admit I'm tough) > > All this would be fine if it weren't for this stuff that's going > on there right now about "pumping up the volume" and trying to get the > highest volume on the net. Talk.bizarre is surpassed in per reader > cost only by some binary/source groups and talk.politics/religion/abortion > groups. > > I tell you I get more and more serious every day about my idea of putting > high volume groups on probation. This crazy attitude is costing everybody > real money. Certain types of groups feed more volume in an upward > spiral. I get my news feed locally, so up to now I haven't had much > to complain about except the money I've spent on bigger disk packs. But > now my feed keeps asking me to spend $1,000 on a Telebit because dialin > times are too long (even for local calls!) and people who dial in for > other reasons complain that it's busy too often with news calls, and > ask me to get other lines. > > I don't know how people who feed over long distance lines can put up > with it! > -- > Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 Brad, That article just cost the net thousands and thousands of dollars. Now don't you feel bad about doing the very thing you complained about? Cindy
wisner@eddie.MIT.EDU (Bill Wisner) (02/27/88)
In an article with a REAL long ID, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >It's amazing how little amusement one gets out of paying large phone bills, >scrambling to find more disk space, placating users who demand to know why >the modems are always busy when they want to do real work, etc. You should >try it some time. Are we going around in circles? This brings me back to my original article: if you don't like the damned group, drop it! ..b
esj@beach.cis.ufl.edu (Eric S. Johnson) (02/27/88)
In article <8272@eddie.MIT.EDU> wisner@eddie.MIT.EDU (Bill Wisner) writes: >In article <1156WGRCU@CUNYVM> [god, no, not BITNET!] WGRCU@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU >> ... Some gunuine concerns about the idea that has gotten into >> the head of some talk bizarre posters. Some seem to think it >> would be a very bizarre and funny thing if they could post >> so much as to make the group #1 in traffic. > >This, students, is a textbook case of WHINY ADMINISTRATOR. Yes, that's >right, WHINY ADMINISTRATOR. Apologies to greg. > >I would even ask if Mr. Rubin has the tiniest shred of a sense of humor. > >Alas, the obvious answer in this case is no. > >I'm done preaching. I'll go post 96K to talk.bizarre now. Good day. > Real bright move Bill. You just go right ahead. Id give talk.bizarre about a one week life span if it ever hit #1. I know I would get rid of it here if that happened. And Im quite sure many other sites would too. Do you have something serious against the group? Personally I think the talk/soc and even the alt groups are good things. They add a little humanity to the net. I even read ole talk.bizarre when Im in the right mood, and once or twice posted. But the attitude that Mr Bill and some other posters to talk.bizarre seem to take realy bugs me. What can mass posting prove? "Hey, I only posted 10K today; ok, ill just post strings vmunix to talk.bizarre. Wow man, pretty bizarre eh? What a sense of humor have I" I can only call this kind of thinking childish. I hope the readers and posters in talk.bizarre remember this: Posting anything and everything, just to become the #1 newsgroup, will end the group. Its that simple. No one who has to worry about disk space or phone bills will even think twice. -- In Real Life: Internet: esj@beach.cis.ufl.edu Eric S. Johnson II UUCP: ...{codas!gatech}!uflorida!beach.cis.ufl.edu!esj University of Florida Think of it as entropy in action :-)
greg@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Gregory Nowak) (02/27/88)
In article <11838@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> esj@beach.cis.ufl.edu (Eric S. Johnson) writes: >>I'm done preaching. I'll go post 96K to talk.bizarre now. Good day. >Real bright move Bill. You just go right ahead. Id give talk.bizarre >about a one week life span if it ever hit #1. I know I would get rid of >it here if that happened. And Im quite sure many other sites would too. Soc.singles was # 1. Soc.women was #2. Would you "give them a one week life span" if they hit #1? If not, why not? I don't read soc.women or soc.singles; How can you say that what I get out of talk.bizarre is any less worthy of net.support than what the soc.singles or soc.women readers get out of their newsgroups? Are you seriously saying that the fact that our method of letting off steam is less valid than the soc. peoples'? When you change your position to one of campaigning for the end of any non-comp group that moves to #1, then you'll be believeable. As long as you're just targeting talk.bizarre, you DO sound like a whiny administrator with no sense of humor. >Personally I think the talk/soc and even the alt groups are good >things. They add a little humanity to the net. Glad you agree. So go bother soc.singles and soc.women. You want mail? Tell soc.singles or soc.women that you'll start a movement to delete the groups if they "accidentally" post too much and come out ahead of comp.sys.ibm.pc? [comp.sys.ibm.pc had 1176 KB in the latest stats, soc.singles had 1067, and soc.women had 1038, so it's quite possible for either of these two groups to place first.] I repeat, once you start complaining about volume in general, and not just talk.bizarre, you'll be believable. > I even read ole >talk.bizarre when Im in the right mood, and once or twice posted. But >the attitude that Mr Bill and some other posters to talk.bizarre seem >to take realy bugs me. What can mass posting prove? "Hey, I only >posted 10K today; ok, ill just post strings vmunix to talk.bizarre. Talking about VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME is one of the traditions of talk.bizarre; do you seriously believe that the massed minions of talk.bizarre are struggling mightily day and night to post volume and only come up with 1035 KB for the month? Give us more credit than that. No one has been posting strings vmunix (but thanks for the idea! :-); standards are a lot higher than that. If you really read talk.bizarre, if you were familiar with our CULTURE, you'd know that "VOLUME" is just an abbreviation. What we really mean is VOLUME with CONTENT. Trust me on this -- NO ONE on the net gets flamed more mightily than a talk.bizarre poster who posts VOLUME without content. If you understand the concept of running jokes on the net, accept the fact that the talk about VOLUME on talk.bizarre is one of them. If you devoted a moment's thought to the matter, you'd realize that restraint IS being exercised, otherwise we WOULD be #1. The fact that volume is so high just testifies to the fact that talk.bizarre is a VERY popular group AMONG ITS READERS. Sure, the per-reader cost is high, but so is the articles posted per reader -- meaning that people are getting something out of the group and contributing to it. >I hope the readers and posters in talk.bizarre remember this: Posting >anything and everything, just to become the #1 newsgroup, will end the >group. Its that simple. No one who has to worry about disk space or >phone bills will even think twice. Read the group for a while, learn the in-jokes, and *then* decide if we're posting nothing but gibberish. Don't make assumptions based on 0 evidence. Sysadmins should have better judgment. -- ...!seismo!princeton!phoenix!greg Greg Nowak/Phoenix Gang/Princeton NJ 08540
ccs026@deneb.ucdavis.edu (-=paul=-) (02/28/88)
Gregory Nowak writes: > How can you say that what I get out of talk.bizarre is >any less worthy of net.support than what the soc.singles or soc.women >readers get out of their newsgroups? Are you seriously saying that the >fact that our method of letting off steam is less valid than the soc. >peoples'? if you get rid of soc.women, you are instantly labeled a chauvanist and oppressor. soc.singles probably stays alive because everybody can relate to being without a mate at some time or another. talk.bizarre, they're the weirdos. let's get rid of them. don't think for a minute that discrimination is dead. >-- >...!seismo!princeton!phoenix!greg > > > Greg Nowak/Phoenix Gang/Princeton NJ 08540 -=paul=- (no song quote, for once i'm serious)
headroom@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (The only computer-generated user at UWM) (02/29/88)
Brad Templeton whines: }I have to say that Bill Rubin is right, and that what we have is a textbook }case of a whiny talk.bizarre reader. I read net.bizarre when it started }for a while, and there were a few good things. When I started }rec.humor.funny, I read talk.bizarre for 2 months to see if I could cull }anything funny, and I found only 1 item. (I'll admit I'm tough) } }All this would be fine if it weren't for this stuff that's going }on there right now about "pumping up the volume" and trying to get the }highest volume on the net. Talk.bizarre is surpassed in per reader }cost only by some binary/source groups and talk.politics/religion/abortion }groups. } }I tell you I get more and more serious every day about my idea of putting }high volume groups on probation. This crazy attitude is costing everybody }real money. Certain types of groups feed more volume in an upward }spiral. I get my news feed locally, so up to now I haven't had much }to complain about except the money I've spent on bigger disk packs. But }now my feed keeps asking me to spend $1,000 on a Telebit because dialin }times are too long (even for local calls!) and people who dial in for }other reasons complain that it's busy too often with news calls, and }ask me to get other lines. } }I don't know how people who feed over long distance lines can put up }with it! I think your wrong. I'm just posting this for VOLUME....... Mark "Probation.....HAHAHAHAAHA!!!!!" Lippert net.average.joe "'M' is for the many things she taught me..." - Oedipus uwvax!uwmcsd1!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!headroom
headroom@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (The only computer-generated user at UWM) (02/29/88)
Eric S. Johnson eye eye writes: }Real bright move Bill. You just go right ahead. Id give talk.bizarre }about a one week life span if it ever hit #1. I know I would get rid of }it here if that happened. And Im quite sure many other sites would too. I truly hope you do. Then REAL people wouldn't have to put up with your random blatherings. }Do you have something serious against the group? Is ANYONE serious in this group? No, I don't think so....... Now let's do a simple test........Ok, try and think (yes, I know it's hard) where exactly are you? Did you say "talk.bizarre?" Very good. I knew you could. Now why in the net.goddesses name would a group like this be created? Because THERE WAS ENOUGH INTREST [echo echo echo]. I don't think it will be removed that easily.....besides, if it was, these loonies would be forced to write to so called normal groups.....I don't believe you would be stupid enough to allow that.... }Personally I think the talk/soc and even the alt groups are good }things. They add a little humanity to the net. I even read ole }talk.bizarre when Im in the right mood, and once or twice posted. But Ye Gads! That's what that putrid scent was..... }the attitude that Mr Bill and some other posters to talk.bizarre seem }to take realy bugs me. What can mass posting prove? "Hey, I only }posted 10K today; ok, ill just post strings vmunix to talk.bizarre. }Wow man, pretty bizarre eh? What a sense of humor have I" At least I have one, you tight-ass..... }I can only call this kind of thinking childish. Well, I'm rubber and your glue; whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you! }I hope the readers and posters in talk.bizarre remember this: Posting }anything and everything, just to become the #1 newsgroup, will end the }group. Its that simple. No one who has to worry about disk space or }phone bills will even think twice. Well, what the hell is the sense of having a newsgroup if you can't post. Remember what I said above.....you are in talk.bizarre....It's a newsgroup designed especially for stupidity. We're bored here with the mundane; becoming the #1 newsgroup give us something to do. Would you rather have up breaking into NORAD or something? Besides, I don't see anyone rushing to remove comp.ibm.pc or whatever that #1 newsgroup was...... The entire point is: if someone didn't think each and every newsgroup on the net was important, that group wouldn't be here. [obnoxious .signature deleated] and here comes my always entertaining sig..... Mark "Still waiting for probation" Lippert net.average.joe "Were you looking for me?" - Dr. Livingston uwvax!uwmcsd1!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!headroom
jsb@dasys1.UUCP (The Invisible Man) (03/01/88)
In article <11838@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> esj@beach.cis.ufl.edu (Eric S. Johnson) writes: >posted 10K today; ok, ill just post strings vmunix to talk.bizarre. strings vmunix? I'm a frayed knot! -- Jim Baumbach {uunet}!mstan\ Big Electric Cat Public Unix {bellcore,cmcl2}!cucard!dasys1!jsb New York, NY, USA {sun}!hoptoad/ or uunet!actnyc!jsb
silverio@spam.berkeley.edu (christine silverio) (03/03/88)
In article <129@ccd700.UUCP> jim@ccd700.UUCP (J. Sitek) writes: >In article <1870@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>, greg@phoenix.UUCP writes: >> In article <11838@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> esj@beach.cis.ufl.edu (Eric S. Johnson) writes: >> >>I'm done preaching. I'll go post 96K to talk.bizarre now. Good day. >I put it to you that Usenet does not exist to provide you with a >psychological relief valve. Your method for letting off steam is, >again, no less valid than the soc. peoples' (sic). THEY ARE >*EQUALLY* INVALID. You go check any bit of documentation ever written >on the subject of Usenet. I will bet that *nowhere* will you find >that Usenet exists to provide anyone with a method of letting off >steam. People like this are counterproductive to the intents of USENET. It is becoming an over-regulated middle-manager's heaven, where anal-retentive types like Sitek can spout off against the very people who create things like the net. People who think need to play, and I don't think a reasonable person can dispute that. Sitek's version of the net has all the comp groups, maybe his favorite rec.sport group because HE reads it (therefore it's valid), and a vast wasteland where the fun and personal contact of the net come in. >> As long as you're just targeting talk.bizarre, you DO >> sound like a whiny administrator with no sense of humor. >While *you* sound like a whiny college student who should spend more >time in English class, and less time crying about the potential loss >of your favorite toy. Yes, I think we've got a case of whiny administrator here. Whiny constipated administrator. >> >Personally I think the talk/soc and even the alt groups are good >> >things. They add a little humanity to the net. >More like mysogeny. (sic) Good thing we can all spell, here. Oh yeah, spelling flames aren't allowed, except when administrator-types want to insult the intelligence of other, lesser, users. [lots of volume-creating drivel deleted. Did you really have to quote ALL that, Sitek? Or were you trying to drive up the VOLUME?] >> ...!seismo!princeton!phoenix!greg >.... However, when the people who pay the tab for >this luxury feel that it is being abused, they are within their >rights to say so. And they should be able to do so without having to >put up with all this self righteous bullshit from the people who are >the worst offenders. Sitek flames himself all too well with that last sentence. Congratulations. Greg couldn't have done better if he'd tried. Though no doubt he'll find a way. Go for it, Greg, in the interests of anarchy, creative thought, and, how could I forget, VOLUME. >Jim Sitek CJ Silverio, both a serious and a recreational user of the Net | C J Silverio | KENT FOR PRESIDENT | ucbvax!brahms!silverio | all administrators, managers, and middle-men, | apprentice Brahms Ganger | packed off in the B-ark for oblivion
ray@micomvax.UUCP (Ray Dunn) (03/12/88)
In article <8301@eddie.MIT.EDU> wisner@eddie.MIT.EDU (Bill Wisner) writes: >In an article with a REAL long ID, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >>It's amazing how little amusement one gets out of paying large phone bills, >>scrambling to find more disk space, placating users who demand to know why >>the modems are always busy when they want to do real work, etc. You should >>try it some time. > >Are we going around in circles? This brings me back to my original article: >if you don't like the damned group, drop it! > God knows or cares what your original article said, but it is *not* as simple as "dropping" a group. The support a site provides for a newsgroup also involves feeding it on down the line to the next site! Childish antics in a group can create a situation where a site administrator may be forced to censor that group to down-line sites! Our system is about 2 weeks behind in news processing due to the amount of disk space required by all the verbiage and the fact that we pass it on to several sites. If *you* don't like the realities of the problems this childish behaviour on USENET creates, then *you* keep off the net! I do however agree that LONG signatures are antisocial, unnecessary, and the funny/clever ones are only funny/clever the FIRST time you read them! Ray Dunn. ..{philabs, mnetor, musocs}!micomvax!ray