webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) (07/07/87)
In article <16003@gatech.gatech.edu>, spaf@gatech.edu (Gene Spafford) writes: > .... [Surely you read it and kept a copy around.] This note was an excellant example of the kinds of notes I generally get from the backbone. If you go back and re-read it, you will find that it alludes to many things being unreasonable, impractical, inconsistant, etc, but does not point at any specific thing and say that about it. This has been done neither on the net nor in mail. Queries have been made, responses have been given, and then totally different queries get made. I maintain that my position is internally consistant and interested parties can read my most recent presentation that was posted on the 5th of July (and available via request by mail). It also alludes to a difference in experience, but no where actually demonstrates the relevance of that experience to the current discussion by drawing on it to support some alternative. 200 lines constitutes 8 typed double-spaced (on a typewriter, not a word-processor) pages of text. Anyone who doesn't have the time to read 8 pages of text is likely to be too busy to ponder the pros and cons of what I am saying. The reader's digest version is: 1) I believe that moderated streams do not necessarily mean higher quality, comparing moderated and unmoderated streams is more like comparing apples and oranges. 2) I believe that current problems with load did not justify the current move away from unmoderated streams. 3) I believe that the alternative backbone solution simply solved the problem by going back to the beginning of time when the net was new and young. Once they grow to a size comparable to the current set up, they will be faced with exactly the same problems as the current backbone (and so far I have heard no indication that they are planning any better alternatives once they get there). 4) I believe that the sources groups are key in this discussion because, of all the moderated groups, the sources groups are special in that they have: a large constituency, no unmoderated stream was set aside as alternatives (most moderated groups also have alternative unmoderated streams nearby), and they were converted without following the procedures that were followed in the conversion of other groups. 5) I believe that no machine can or should be forced to carry anything it doesn't want to, but that the machine must develop ways of determining what it does and doesn't want. As long as we rely on ``gentlemans's agreements'' there will always be disputes over proper and improper use of the net. 6) I believe that in the past I have been responsive to comments from the backbone, both by responding via mail and actually acting differently based on what seemed to make sense, such as hao!wood's presentation of why the mailing list idea was inconsistant current customs in the use of computer mail. 7) I believe that all of the above is already on the record, that I have been speaking on these matters since the sources groups went moderated, and that even I am tired of hearing all of this. Hence, although I am seldom inclined to let pass plain misrepresentations of what I have said in the past, don't expect much more from me until I see signs that people are really interested in discussing ideas (preferably via mail). Anyone who is interested in being a translator between me and spaf will be welcome with open arms (although a necessary prerequisite would be that you can make sense of both his postings and mine). Incidently, I have recieved notes from such people, some of them even cc'd to spaf, so they do exist. -- BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!webber) p.s., In a separate message, kre@munnari.oz claims that I have misrepresented his views. Since they are, after all, his views and since his current interpretation is consistant with what was sent (although it puts a less kind light on it than my interpretation which was also consistant with what he sent), I am certainly willing to yield the presentation of his position to him. p.p.s., Someone or other called me a fool. Doubtless you have seen enough of my postings to imagine how I would have responded if I had bothered. I figure good manners only requires that I be less immoderate than the person I am replying to. Some people have gone out of their way to give me alot of leeway.
allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) (07/11/87)
In this, which I firmly intend to be my last word on the subject for reasons to be detailed herein, I will attempt yet again to respond to Mr. Webber's postings. This has been going on between us since he sent his "ombudsman" proposal to the moderators list. Therefore, point-by-point: As quoted from <286@brandx.rutgers.edu> by webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber): +--------------- | 3) I believe that the alternative backbone solution simply | solved the problem by going back to the beginning of time | when the net was new and young. Once they grow to a size | comparable to the current set up, they will be faced with | exactly the same problems as the current backbone (and so | far I have heard no indication that they are planning any | better alternatives once they get there). +--------------- You obviously don't understand the reason for the alternate backbone; it's not to solve load problems, it's to let the Bob Webbers of the world make their own newsgroups in their own ways without forcing them down the throats (or news systems) of people who prefer the current system. In other words, you can remodel your house all you like, but try to remodel mine without _my_ permission and I'll break your neck for you. Which goes for not only the moderators and the backbone, but most of the rest of the net as well. You didn't leave any room for discussion about moderation, you simply declared it to be wrong. What if people WANT moderated newsgroups? From what I've seen from you, any such must be considered deluded or ignorant by your standards. At least the current backbone will listen to complaints, whereas you start shouting your treasured beliefs louder and louder in hopes that you can drown out the rest of us. I, for one, prefer Gene Spafford to _that_ any day. +--------------- | 4) I believe that the sources groups are key in this discussion | because, of all the moderated groups, the sources groups are | special in that they have: a large constituency, no unmoderated | stream was set aside as alternatives (most moderated groups | also have alternative unmoderated streams nearby), and they | were converted without following the procedures that were followed | in the conversion of other groups. +--------------- Yes, just as you proposed to map comp.binaries.all to talk.bizarre. I have yet to see you show any "moral superiority" over the current backbone. Am I to believe that you are right because you are the One Bob Webber and all others are not and are therefore absolutely wrong? What you proposed with comp.binaries.all is NO different than what you accuse the backbone of doing. +--------------- | 5) I believe that no machine can or should be forced to carry anything | it doesn't want to, but that the machine must develop ways of | determining what it does and doesn't want. As long as we rely | on ``gentlemans's agreements'' there will always be disputes | over proper and improper use of the net. +--------------- You also believe that every machine on the net should be forced to carry drivel in order to receive sources. Either that, or you never subscribed to net.sources while it was around. I _did_, which is why I take such great pleasure in blasting non-source to pieces when it arrives in the sources-misc mailbox. Again, it just doesn't wash. Don't put on airs of moral superiority and then prove that you're not one whit different from anyone else. +--------------- | 6) I believe that in the past I have been responsive to comments | from the backbone, both by responding via mail and actually | acting differently based on what seemed to make sense, such | as hao!wood's presentation of why the mailing list idea was | inconsistant current customs in the use of computer mail. +--------------- I'll remember that next time I read 90K of ~/Mail/moderators, most of which is Bob Webber screaming until he's blue in the face that he's right and therefore the rest of us are all by definition and mandate of God absolutely wrong. Let's reduce this discussion to lowest terms: BOB WEBBER HATES MODERATED NEWSGROUPS. This is freely admitted by Mr. Webber and is in the foreground of every "discussion" he has made on this topic. Now, examining the record, we can find that, based on this, most of his complaints about our responses are not related to the basic at all; except that he also hates the backbone as they are the force behind those evil soul-robbers, the moderators. This causes me to suspect that Mr. Webber is running out of arguments. Again, I give my answer to his complaint about moderated source groups: "I have proof that the majority of the net prefers moderated sources news- groups. If you want an unmoderated source group, join the alternate backbone and subscribve to alt.sources." And again, his response from above: +--------------- | 3) I believe that the alternative backbone solution simply | solved the problem by going back to the beginning of time | when the net was new and young. Once they grow to a size | comparable to the current set up, they will be faced with | exactly the same problems as the current backbone (and so | far I have heard no indication that they are planning any | better alternatives once they get there). +--------------- Somehow, I don't think he responded to what I said. (And then he has the nerve to berate Spaf for the same thing? "Physician, heal thyself".) The general tone of the once-raging discussion in the moderators' list was one of "I want to slash-destroy-kill moderated groups, and I don't give a d*mn what anyone else thinks about it". Again, I have documented proof (insofar as an opinion can be "proved") of this for those who are interested. In the meantime, I dropped out of the discussion in the moderators' list, and I am dropping out of this one; I suspect Mr. Webber likes to stir up hornets' nests. -- [Copyright 1987 Brandon S. Allbery, all rights reserved] \ ncoast 216 781 6201 [Redistributable only if redistribution is subsequently permitted.] \ 2400 bd. Brandon S. Allbery, moderator of comp.sources.misc and comp.binaries.ibm.pc {{ames,harvard,mit-eddie}!necntc,{well,ihnp4}!hoptoad,cbosgd}!ncoast!allbery <<The opinions herein are those of my cat, therefore they must be correct!>>