brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (05/11/89)
Why am I so interested in the References: line? I believe that the final key to solving most of the problems on USENET is better article classification. Article headers should contain as much information about the poster as possible, in a machine understandable form. Once we get posting programs including more and more information, it's up to the reader to configure his or her reading based on that info. Not everybody will do it, but the burden now falls on the reader. Then, if your reader doesn't present USENET to you the way you want, then that's your problem, and you shouldn't complain to the net about it. Some say undergrads and novices should not post. I say that sites should simply put flags on articles indicating the poster's usenet experience and let the reader decide. Some say you shouldn't crosspost between soc.women and talk.abortion -- I say let the newsreader filter that out. To this end, I am having written, at my own expense, a more powerful postnews/Pnews program. This will include a simple language to control posting. Tests can be made, menus can be popped up and information can be added to articles, both on a global or newsgroup specific basis. I will give this program away free. In the end, the only thing people should have to complain about is whether or not people classify their articles well. Those who are novices can learn, and those who deliberately lie can be put in kill files. But we need the header information, and we need it to work. The References: line is something that was put in several years ago and it still doesn't provide what it was intended to. Once the information is there, the various and sundry news reading and filtering tools (I'm working on some of these, too) can be used to let each reader see the usenet they want to see -- to the extent that they're willing to program or buy programs for. In fact, the only problem this doesn't solve is the disk space and transmission cost of wasteful postings. But the biggest cost of USENET is actually the human cost -- time spent reading postings you don't want to and complaining about them. If we can deal with that problem we are well on the way. If there is interest, I will list some of the ways I think articles can be classified, and how they might work. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
smb@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com (Steven M. Bellovin) (05/11/89)
Mechanisms such as ``References:'' lines and keywords will not be used properly until there are readers that take advantage of them. That is, in today's Usenet there is very little reason to retain or create such lines; they just create goo. Yes, they were invented for a purpose -- but most users neither know nor care. Once the readers are out there, the usage will take care of itself.
vnend@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (D. W. James) (05/12/89)
In article <3233@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes:
)Why am I so interested in the References: line?
)I believe that the final key to solving most of the problems on USENET is
)better article classification. Article headers should contain as much
)information about the poster as possible, in a machine understandable
)form.
I disagree, for reasons I'll get to below, especially with the
part about article headers.
)Once we get posting programs including more and more information, it's up
)to the reader to configure his or her reading based on that info. Not
)everybody will do it, but the burden now falls on the reader.
)Then, if your reader doesn't present USENET to you the way you want, then
)that's your problem, and you shouldn't complain to the net about it.
Some of us would say that this is the way it works now, and
that you are the one complaining to the net.
)Some say undergrads and novices should not post. I say that sites should
)simply put flags on articles indicating the poster's usenet experience
)and let the reader decide. Some say you shouldn't crosspost between
)soc.women and talk.abortion -- I say let the newsreader filter that out.
The first, to put it delicately, a touchy subject (Personally, I
think it is silly), the second is already implemented, at least under
rn.
)To this end, I am having written, at my own expense, a more powerful
)postnews/Pnews program. This will include a simple language to control
)posting. Tests can be made, menus can be popped up and information can
)be added to articles, both on a global or newsgroup specific basis. I
)will give this program away free.
)In the end, the only thing people should have to complain about is whether
)or not people classify their articles well. Those who are novices can
)learn, and those who deliberately lie can be put in kill files.
Let me get this straight. Are you saying that since USENET doesn't
work the way Brad Templeton wants it to, and because you have spent so much
of your own time writing something that you think makes reading news easier
for you, that the *entire net* should modify its software to conform to your
software? And even to the point of suggesting (in the posting about
'broken' reference lines) that any site that broke a reference line (broken
being your own definition) be cut off from the net? Brad, your chutzpa
amazes me.
The purpose of the net is facilate communications. That communications
takes place in the *body* of the article, not the header. If you want to
select articles that only interest you, then you should be looking at the
body, not the header anyway. The proposal to increase header size serves
only to make things more expensive, by transmitting information other than
what the net needs (current required header info is needed for propogation
of articles) and not adding to discussion that is the purpose of the net.
I'll only suggest the problems of acquiring the information you want
accurately, deciding what is esential information for the purposes of weeding
out articles (do we stop at race, age and sexual preference or go on to
shoe size?), and implimenting this mess all across the network.
What Brad suggests, that WHO posts an idea is more important than the
IDEA itself, is both dangerous and poorly conceived. I can only hope that
the majority of people out there agree, or I'll be forced to predict The End
of the Net. (1/2 :-)
)In fact, the only problem this doesn't solve is the disk space and transmission
)cost of wasteful postings. But the biggest cost of USENET is actually
)the human cost -- time spent reading postings you don't want to and
)complaining about them. If we can deal with that problem we are well
)on the way.
Are there wasteful postings? There are postings that you think
are wasteful, and there are postings that I think are wasteful. If we
disagree, who is correct? I think that the sceme that you are proposing
is inherently wasteful, since it adds to traffic without adding any content.
You, obviously, disagree. Who is correct, and what gives either of us the
right to expect the other to accept our vision of the net? Are you saying
that you really want headers that look like the one on this article?
)If there is interest, I will list some of the ways I think articles can
)be classified, and how they might work.
)Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
I'm afraid to ask, but in truth am only interested to see what it
tells us about you.
--
Later Y'all, Vnend Ignorance is the mother of adventure.
SCA event list? Mail? Send to:vnend@phoenix.princeton.edu or vnend@pucc.bitnet
Anonymous posting service (NO FLAMES!) at vnend@ms.uky.edu
"The plot thicks..."steved@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Steve Dempsey) (05/12/89)
> Mechanisms such as ``References:'' lines and keywords will not be > used properly until there are readers that take advantage of them. > That is, in today's Usenet there is very little reason to retain > or create such lines; they just create goo. Yes, they were invented > for a purpose -- but most users neither know nor care. Once the > readers are out there, the usage will take care of itself. This is like saying there is no reason for automobiles until we have drivers that take advantage of them. So how is one supposed to learn how to drive in a vehicle that does not run? I, for one, often want to find THE parent article but can not because the references chain has been clobbered. It is particularly difficult when articles have been cross-posted and the originial was in some other group. I am not willing to search every newsgroup for a subject when I should be able to key on message ID. The readers are alreay out there and the usage is not taking care of itself. That's what good news software is for: to protect the reader from his own ignorance. Steve Dempsey, Center for Computer Assisted Engineering Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523 +1 303 491 0630 INET: steved@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu, dempsey@handel.CS.ColoState.Edu UUCP: boulder!ccncsu!longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu!steved, ...!ncar!handel!dempsey
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (05/12/89)
In article <8376@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> vnend@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (D. W. James) writes: > > Let me get this straight. Are you saying that since USENET doesn't >work the way Brad Templeton wants it to, and because you have spent so much >of your own time writing something that you think makes reading news easier >for you, that the *entire net* should modify its software to conform to your >software? And even to the point of suggesting (in the posting about >'broken' reference lines) that any site that broke a reference line (broken >being your own definition) be cut off from the net? Brad, your chutzpa >amazes me. You do not have it straight. I am suggesting, and have never done anything more than suggest, that the more information the newsreader can tell about the article, the better, and that we should strive in that direction, and to help in striving in that direction, I am going to give away some software. This is chutzpa? I have never done anything but suggest, and never suggested that anybody's net activity be dictated -- except when it comes to defining the format of news articles. Quite the reverse, as you may remember -- I'm the one that some other people want to dictate to, for some reason. :-( To clarify one point, I did overemphasize that the header should contain information about the poster. I meant to say 'posting', so don't get your shorts in a knot. In fact, what I would like to see is a combination of information, with a little reasonable information about the poster and lots about the posting. > I'm afraid to ask, but in truth am only interested to see what it >tells us about you. Why is it that you can't post anything on this net, even in news.admin (which is supposed to contain more experienced netters) without immediate rounds of personal attack and the questioning of people's motives? Sheesh! -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) (05/13/89)
I think it's probably a fact of life (unfortunately) that
getting all the net.anarchists out there to toe some line,
no matter how reasonable, is an exercise in futility.
Something I've been speculating on for some time is a
smart news reader, which would only show you the *good*
stuff. This would be quite a challenge to the AI people,
especially since everyone has a different idea of what
"the good stuff" is. How about it out there -- is
natural language AI technology up to being able to classify
a message, detect flames, detect one-line followups with
a 100 line prior message quoted in its entirety even when
the poster changes the ">" to something else -- the list
of possibilities could go on forever. And, of course,
to dynamically change the 'squelch' criteria for each
individual's tastes, or whim of the moment.
--
...Defending the truth...is not something one | Mike Van Pelt
does out of a sense of duty or to allay guilt | Video 7
complexes, but it is a reward in itself. | ..ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp
-- Dr. Petr Beckmanndww@stl.stc.co.uk (David Wright) (05/15/89)
In article <8376@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> vnend@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (D. W. James) writes: #In article <3233@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: #)I believe that the final key to solving most of the problems on USENET is #)better article classification. Article headers should contain as much #)information ... #)To this end, I am having written, at my own expense, a more powerful #)postnews/Pnews program. This will include a simple language to control #)posting. Tests can be made, menus can be popped up and information can #)be added to articles, both on a global or newsgroup specific basis. I #)will give this program away free. # # Let me get this straight. Are you saying that since USENET doesn't #work the way Brad Templeton wants it to, and because you have spent so much #of your own time writing something that you think makes reading news easier #for you, that the *entire net* should modify its software to conform to your #software? And even to the point of suggesting (in the posting about #'broken' reference lines) that any site that broke a reference line (broken #being your own definition) be cut off from the net? Brad, your chutzpa #amazes me. Mr James, your rudeness amazes me. Brad is going to produce a new Pnews program that may be useful, and is giving it to the net - the time-honoured way of progress on the net. If generally thought useful, it will be used, and we will all be grateful. If not thought useful, it will be ignored, though most of us will still be grateful for the offer. When I read Brad's posting, I though that for once not even the most destructive netters will be able to find an objection this time. I should have known better. I suggest that you appologise to Brad (and to the net) for your unreasonable behaviour. If not, you risk your name being used in future as a unit of measurement for unjustified flaming, the referenced posting being the standard unit of 1 kiloJames. Regards, "None shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity" David Wright STL, London Road, Harlow, Essex CM17 9NA, UK dww@stl.stc.co.uk <or> ...uunet!mcvax!ukc!stl!dww <or> PSI%234237100122::DWW
matt@oddjob.uchicago.edu (Matt Crawford) (05/17/89)
In article <3239@looking.UUCP>, brad@looking (Brad Templeton) writes:
) Why is it that you can't post anything on this net, even in news.admin
) (which is supposed to contain more experienced netters) without immediate
) rounds of personal attack and the questioning of people's motives? Sheesh!
Why is it that you can't read any group on this net, even news.admin
(which is supposed to contain more sensible netters), without Brad
Templeton popping up and trying to rewrite the rules to suit himself? Sheesh!
________________________________________________________
Matt Crawford matt@oddjob.uchicago.eduvnend@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (D. W. James) (05/19/89)
In article <3239@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: )In article <8376@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> vnend@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (D. W. James) writes: )You do not have it straight. I am suggesting, and have never done anything )more than suggest, that the more information the newsreader can tell about )the article, the better, and that we should strive in that direction, and )to help in striving in that direction, I am going to give away some software. But your example (the undergrad bit I think it was?) clearly indicated that you meant the poster. I agree that more information on articles would help some people in their news reading, but don't think that anything short of an automated way of generating that information will be effective, any more than keywords and summaries are universally used now. I also read, perhaps mistakenly, your original posting to imply that you would make the reader you have writen available, but unless certain factors that you had assumed in writing it (and had found to be unrelyable) were fixed that it wasn't any use... rather than considering that fixing the program would be easier than fixing (assuming it is broken) the net. And even the broken is questionable. rn will only handle reference lines up to a certain length, after that it crashes messily. Your posting of sites that had broken news programs included phoenix, the site I post from... and probably all 3 of the examples you noted were mine! I've gotten tired of rn dying in the middle of a post, so I long ago started editing extremely long reference lines... which you're study would report as a broken mailer. )This is chutzpa? I have never done anything but suggest, and never suggested )that anybody's net activity be dictated -- except when it comes to defining )the format of news articles. Quite the reverse, as you may remember -- I'm )the one that some other people want to dictate to, for some reason. :-( I'm sorry, I could have sworn I saw a posting from looking that suggested that sites generating what you called broken reference lines be given some time to clean up their act or have their feeds cut off. Hmmm... Yes, that. Someone wanted to cut off your postings because they found some of them offensive, and went to great lengths to do so. Now you are advocating a method that would encourage at least partial exclusion of their material based on factors other than what they say, and have gone to moderate lengths to enable it. )To clarify one point, I did overemphasize that the header should contain )information about the poster. I meant to say 'posting', so don't get your )shorts in a knot. In fact, what I would like to see is a combination )of information, with a little reasonable information about the poster and )lots about the posting. I think I saw a posting on ahead about what you consider reasonable information on the poster, I'll defer comment till I get to it again. )> I'm afraid to ask, but in truth am only interested to see what it )>tells us about you. ) )Why is it that you can't post anything on this net, even in news.admin )(which is supposed to contain more experienced netters) without immediate )rounds of personal attack and the questioning of people's motives? Sheesh! I'm sorry you took that as an attack, I'm mearly questioning the rationality of your suggestion, and wondering what it means about the thought processes behind it. As for more experienced netters... ha... -- Later Y'all, Vnend Ignorance is the mother of adventure. SCA event list? Mail? Send to:vnend@phoenix.princeton.edu or vnend@pucc.bitnet Anonymous posting service (NO FLAMES!) at vnend@ms.uky.edu "The plot thicks..."
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (05/19/89)
It has always been the practice in news.admin that admins can make suggestions and bring forth ideas on ways USENET could change or move. I have only seen a few cases where things said here were anything more than suggestions or ideas. I don't think anybody wants to repeat those incidents! The reason I push a high level of article classification is because it moves the locus of problem solving on usenet. Once done, it moves it from the posters to the readers. It's very hard for me to do something about what you post, after all, and sometimes impolite for me to try. But it is easy (in the political sense, not necessarily the software sense) for me to do something about my readers -- *as long as the information is there*. If we agree to try to put the information in -- any reasonable, useful information -- then each person gets to decide what type of usenet they would like to read. This is the true way of anarchy. The decisions are distributed, not centralized. But such anarchy doesn't work without some sort of system underneath. If building up facets to the system actually helps decentralize decisions, then this 'building' actually helps the anarchy, no matter what your intuition might say. While reading tools can be shared, they are run on individual machines under the full control of the reader. Only the posting format is global. That's why I have made a postnews that does what I suggest to give away. My reading tools are for me to use, sell, give away or erase, as I see fit -- they are personal tools, and it doesn't matter who runs them. A posting program, on the other hand is executed by one person, but the output is used by tens of thousands. This makes a posting program more than a personal tool. You actually run the posting program not for yourself, but for the readers, and it should be the best posting program that the readers can want, not the best posting program for the poster. Think of how many usenet debates can be settled with strong article classification: a) This group needs to be split! - Those interested in the split simply classify your articles and uses readers that can deal with the classification. Encourage others to do so. b) I wish only women/men/phds/grads/pros/wizards/novices would post to this group! - Classify yourselves, voluntarily, and if desired, filter your reading accordingly. c) I am tired of the endless discussion of xxx in group yyy. - Arrange for the classification menu for the group to include xxx -- filter out these postings. d) I want to see only discussion of xxx in group yyy - Arrange for the classification menu for the group to include xxx -- filter out the rest. e) I like group y, but there are too many flame wars. - Have the flamers classify their articles as flames. Many will comply. If some don't, filter them out. They want an audience, they don't want to be filtered -- you would be surprised how quickly they comply. f) Moderated groups slow things down or suppress information. - That an article is moderated is just a form of classification in some cases, unless the moderated group takes publication form. You could have a group where you have 10 moderators, or even a group where only approved posters can post, or moderators (who deal with other's postings) Post responsibly and you get on the good list, so there are no delays. g) I hate Templeton - Filter me out. Please. The fact is we don't care about what people post, by and large, we care about what we read. (Phone bills are another question.) If the postings are classified enough, then it's up to us, and nobody else, what we read. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
emv@math.lsa.umich.edu (Edward Vielmetti) (05/20/89)
Brad is a proponent of strong typing; he wants everything up front, classified neatly in the headers, and carefully pigeonholed. For moderated groups, or moderate discussion, this is reasonable. Where the arguments begin to break down is with all this talk of 'sub-roots', or articles which purport to be simultaneously the foundation of a discussion and a response to a second discussion. Indeed there's the strong problem of classifying and categorizing articles of this type, which do not fit neatly into any sort of linear, hierarchical, or two-dimensional classification order. When I'm feeling philosophical about this, I think of articles embedded in newsgroup-space. There's a time dimension, a region of appropriateness for each group, and then articles or clumps of articles tacked up within the region. Similar newsgroups (news.admin and news.misc) will have regions that overlap. In the fullness of time, the region corresponding to appropriate articles for a group will shrink, expand, or exhibit signs of cold fusion (i.e. get real hot and then die off everywhere but Utah). The migration of what is appropriate for a newsgroup will be curtailed somewhat by a fixation on reference points, but it will persist nonetheless. Attempts to dictate, legislate, codify, classify, and dare I say control discussion in a group of sufficient tradition and convention will tend to fail. Discussion follows its own course, and there's little that most people can do to change it. A few individuals can by their persistence, great skill, and timeliness can do a lot to add to the content of the group; but I assure you that they do so not by having articles with perfect References: lines and carefully chosen keywords. --Ed
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (05/20/89)
In article <643@stag.math.lsa.umich.edu> emv@math.lsa.umich.edu (Edward Vielmetti) writes: >A few individuals can by their persistence, >great skill, and timeliness can do a lot to add to the >content of the group; but I assure you that they do so not >by having articles with perfect References: lines and >carefully chosen keywords. I assure you that I agree with many of the sentiments here. But I believe that we are not attaining these goals. For me at least, the only possible action in many groups has been the 'u' key. These individuals of great skill are there, but they are lost in a noisy room. How many of you have unsubscribed to a group you would like to read simply because it contained too much stuff you didn't want to read, and there was no way to split things up? My life on USENET spans 8 years. For the past several years, I have unsubscribed to far more groups than I have joined. It seems as usenet grows, and the number of groups grows, I read *fewer* groups, not more. So yes, perhaps usenet should be unstructured and we should not try to put classifications on our articles in an abstract sense. But we have to be practical. I could not survive without the 'k' key, and sometimes without the '=' and 'c' keys of RN. Soon it will be beyond that. Is there another answer? Can we continue to have huge sprawling groups that have no classification within them? This is part of the great 'imminent death of the net' syndrome which I codified some time ago. When usenet faces a pressure, it doesn't die. Instead, it does one of two things: a) It changes, adapting to pressures and needs of the users b) It doesn't change, and those who get fed up with it leave, to be replaced by those who don't mind it. Most of the old time usenetters are gone. I only know of a small handful of us who still take an active role in making the net run. Of the rest, many have just plain gone, and many lurk, or read just a few groups. Sometimes action (b) above is not bad, but sometimes it's the bad driving out the good. How many times have you seen a newsgroup where the sane and interesting people all leave because it becomes too noisy? -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
matt@oddjob.uchicago.edu (Matt Crawford) (05/23/89)
In article <3340@looking.UUCP>, brad@looking (Brad Templeton) writes:
) If we agree to try to put the information in -- ...
) This is the true way of anarchy. ... But such anarchy doesn't work
) without some sort of system underneath. ...
I'll bet you that (1) Brad is a libertarian and (2) other libertarians
are ashamed of him.
) That's why I have made a postnews that does what I suggest to give away.
) My reading tools are for me to use, sell, give away or erase, as I see
) fit -- they are personal tools, and it doesn't matter who runs them.
Translation: "I want to impose my system on you by giving you something
free which will enhance the value of what I want to sell."
This reminds me very much of the way Nestle marketed artificial milk
products to third-world mothers.
________________________________________________________
Matt Crawford matt@oddjob.uchicago.edupete@ittg.UUCP (2301) (05/23/89)
In <3345@looking> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >In <643@stag> emv@math.lsa.umich.edu (Edward Vielmetti) writes: >>A few individuals can by their persistence, >>great skill, and timeliness can do a lot to add to the >>content of the group; > >I assure you that I agree with many of the sentiments here. But I >believe that we are not attaining these goals. Ohhh, were communicating, is that not a start? I bet there are alot of silent people out there ;-) >For me at least, the only possible action in many groups has been >the 'u' key. These individuals of great skill are there, but they are ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^ ditto, and what about those of us that have GREAT POTENTIAL. >lost in a noisy room. How many of you have unsubscribed to a group you ^^^^^^^^^^^^ comp.unix.[questions, wizards, (and for me) xenix] >would like to read simply because it contained too much stuff you >didn't want to read, and there was no way to split things up? and there are a number of topics I want to discuss but really don't want to add to the excessive size (NOISE) of the group. >[...] >Is there another answer? Can we continue to have huge sprawling groups >that have no classification within them? For heaven's sake, let's not. "Just say NO!" >[...] > a) It changes, adapting to pressures and needs of the users > b) It doesn't change, and those who get fed up with it leave, > to be replaced by those who don't mind it. >[...] >many have just plain gone, and many lurk, or read just a few groups. Was it here, or maybe 'news.sysadmin', that Dennis Ritchie recently posted an article. And it was really a reply to someone else's posting (I think Rick Adams). What a shame. The NOISY ROOM has chased Dennis, and others away from those of us who could stand to have a little sanity incorporated and/or re-incorporated into our knowledge base (not to say there aren't sane people out here). >Sometimes action (b) above is not bad, but sometimes it's the bad driving >out the good. How many times have you seen a newsgroup where the sane >and interesting people all leave because it becomes too noisy? >-- >Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario If the options exist to improve the situation, shouldn't we utilize them? I think so. I, frankly, would like to get the chance to "brush shoulders" with people like Ritchie, Kernighan, Chuq, Horton, Templeton, etc, ... before their all gone. REFLECTION: I was so impressed with the fact that Dennis came out of his corner recently, that I printed that article and brought it to the Maine Unix User's Group last week and showed the people that One of the Greats really was still alive BUT lurking...;-( A sane person (I hope), -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pete Sherwood pete@ittg.UUCP uunet!usm3b2!ittg!pete Passamaquoddy Indian Tribe, Princeton, Maine Voice 207-796-2301 8-4 EDT ============================================================================
kent@ssbell.UUCP (Kent Landfield) (05/24/89)
In article <3378@tank.uchicago.edu> matt@oddjob.uchicago.edu (Matt Crawford) writes: >I'll bet you that (1) Brad is a libertarian and (2) other libertarians >are ashamed of him. > >) That's why I have made a postnews that does what I suggest to give away. >) My reading tools are for me to use, sell, give away or erase, as I see >) fit -- they are personal tools, and it doesn't matter who runs them. > >Translation: "I want to impose my system on you by giving you something >free which will enhance the value of what I want to sell." > >This reminds me very much of the way Nestle marketed artificial milk >products to third-world mothers. >________________________________________________________ >Matt Crawford matt@oddjob.uchicago.edu It is *truley* amazing how far people will crawl in order to personally attack someone. I really hope that it makes you "feel big" because Matt, all you are accomplishing is making youself look "small" to the rest of the world. I see no reason for personal attacks here. Brad has tried to bring a rational discussion to news.admin and this is what *you* contribute. Although I may not agree with everything Brad says, he has been contributing to the net. Is this the level of your contribution ? Time to "up" your standards a bit. -Kent+