webber@porthos.rutgers.edu (Bob Webber) (07/02/88)
In article <114@carpet.WLK.COM>, bill@carpet.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) writes: > In article <Jun.29.13.41.34.1988.18001@porthos.rutgers.edu> webber@porthos.rutgers.edu (Bob Webber) writes: > >In article <385@teletron.UUCP>, andrew@teletron.UUCP (Andrew Scott) writes: > AS [...] > BW You know, I was down at the Library Of Congress the other day and noticed > BW that they had more books than I could read in a lifetime (even if I > > Excuse me, what does this have to do with news administration? 1) It was in reply to the main point of a message that was posted in news.admin which in turn was part of the central thrust of a rather long conversation that resided within news.admin. So, the first thing to observe is that there is nothing out of the ordinary about the posting -- although I would be the last one to say that common-ness implied unobjectionable. 2) Usenet news groups are not library classifications -- they are online clubs. Most of the conversation at a chess club might be about chess, but you can bet that if someone heard something interesting in the news that day, it too will get aired. Certainly meta-issues such as whether the FIDE is really run by the russians will also be discussed even if they have very little to do with improving one's game. This is called socializing. It is something people do. It happens everywhere on the net. It is what holds the net together. 3) And then of course, there is #3. Why did you post a message asking me why I posted my message? PROPOSAL: Well, since everybody wants to change Usenet, here is one more shot: require every message to have a REASON: field. If a message comes thru without a REASON: field, it gets dropped because it was posted without a reason. Have the first thing any of the news posting software does is ask why you want to post a message. ---- BOB (webber@athos.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!athos.rutgers.edu!webber) REASON: Some postings have reasons about which reason knows not.