WGRCU@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (Bill Rubin) (02/24/88)
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: In article <1918@mind.UUCP>, greg@mind.UUCP (greg Nowak) says: > >In article <7080@uunet.UU.NET> newsstats@uunet.UU.NET writes: > > No. of $ Cost % of Cumulative > Rank Kbytes Articles per Site Total % of Total Group (Articles/contributor) > 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) > > >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. > >-- > greg 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. ------- Bill Rubin City University of New York 212/903-3676 WGRCU@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
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
heiby@falkor.UUCP (Ron Heiby) (02/25/88)
Bill Wisner (wisner@eddie.MIT.EDU) writes: | (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) | | I would even ask if Mr. Rubin has the tiniest shred of a sense of humor. As I don't know Mr. Rubin, I won't comment directly on his sense of humor, but I suspect that it is much like that of most people who are responsible for the use of machine resources. Most people in such a position probably would find a talk.bizarre that had a "% of Total" somewhere below 1.0% to be at least mildly humorous. Most people in such a position probably find the current talk.bizarre, with a 3.1% value to be quite sad. Bill suggests later in his article that if a site doesn't like talk.bizarre, then they can stop taking it. This is quite true. I find it very odd that someone would want to encourage the kind of behaviour that will lead to increasing numbers of administrators taking exactly that action. [Note: This article is not going to talk.bizarre, because I don't support the "talk" groups. Never did. Never will. It is also not going to alt.flame, because I don't support institutionalized flaming on the net. The groups aren't here, so I can't post to them.] -- Ron Heiby, heiby@mcdchg.UUCP Moderator: comp.newprod & comp.unix "Intel architectures build character."
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 article <1435@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >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) I have to say that Brad Templeton is wrong, and that what we have is a textbook case of an administrator who can't be bothered with the facts. I don't read talk.bizarre. ..b
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
webber@athos.rutgers.edu (Bob Webber) (02/28/88)
In article <134@falkor.UUCP>, heiby@falkor.UUCP (Ron Heiby) writes: > | (article <7080@uunet.UU.NET>, newsstats@uunet.UU.NET) > | >> No. of $ Cost % of Cumulative > | >> Rank Kbytes Articles per Site Total % of Total Group > | >> 4 1035.2 1263 32.35 3.1% 12.7% talk.bizarre (6.2) > for the use of machine resources. Most people in such a position probably > would find a talk.bizarre that had a "% of Total" somewhere below 1.0% > to be at least mildly humorous. Most people in such a position probably > find the current talk.bizarre, with a 3.1% value to be quite sad. Yes it is quite sad. Sad that so many beancounters have made so much of the net sufficiently unfriendly that so many people are being ghettoized into talk.bizarre. ------ BOB (webber@athos.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!athos.rutgers.edu!webber)
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
jim@ccd700.UUCP (J. Sitek) (03/02/88)
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. > > >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? I get paid to support Usenet (among many other things). I won't say that talk.bizarre is any *less* worthy of my time than the aforementioned soc groups. They are all *equally* unworthy of my time, period. Am I a fascist sysadmin? Perhaps. Do I care if that's what you think of me? Nope. The people around here get paid to design automobiles, not to waste the company's time and money arguing with psychotic feminists, arguing the merits of singles bars, or (worst case) posting juvenile, often unintelligible nonsense to the ends of the earth. It is for this reason that I have chosen to eliminate the talk/soc groups from our feed. Besides, I was getting a little tired of coming in every morning and seeing "file system full" on my console screen. > Are you seriously saying that the > fact that our method of letting off steam is less valid than the soc. > peoples'? 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. In fact, one of the biggest problems I see with Usenet is that too many people view it as a screaming forum. Here is a news flash for you: Usenet access is *not* a constitutionally guaranteed right. It is a privilege. If it is abused, I'm all for cutting it off. This business of shooting for number one on the volume chart is not only counterproductive to the intents of Usenet, it is also typical of intensified adolescent behavior. Why don't you try something constructive, like becoming number one in quantum physics, or even interpersonal communication? > 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. By taking this to it's logical conclusion, we can see that this will eventually lead to the extinction of *all* non-comp groups. I don't think anyone has suggested this. > 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. > > >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. > > 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. Jesus H. Christ, when will people learn that they can't justify their abuse of a resource by pointing out other, possibly greater, examples of similar abuse? Two wrongs don't make a right. > > > 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? Yes! 1035 KB is a *lot* of verbal nothingness. > 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. *That* is rich! Volume with content. Laughable, if it weren't so expensive. Of course, *you* wouldn't know about *that* would you? > 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. *I* have read the group. *I* have learned the in-jokes. Talk.bizarre is not so much a newsgroup, as a clique. You speak of people being flamed for posting volume without content. In reality, the people who receive the worst flames, are the people who are not accepted by your little clique. For example, one Eric Madding was continually, publicly chastised for posting his views to talk.bizarre. Now, one may not agree with Mr. Madding's views, but, the very name "talk.bizarre" does imply that one may post whatever one wishes, even random keystrokes if one is so inclined. And I have seen postings in that group which were exactly that. Volume without content indeed. > ...!seismo!princeton!phoenix!greg In closing, I would say that talk.bizarre can best be thought of as a luxury. It is in no way vital to the well being of the net, or the people posting to it. 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. Jim Sitek
ron@ccd700.UUCP (ron) (03/02/88)
> I get paid to support Usenet (among many other things). I won't say > that talk.bizarre is any *less* worthy of my time than the aforementioned > soc groups. They are all *equally* unworthy of my time, period. Am I > a fascist sysadmin? Perhaps. Do I care if that's what you think of me? > Nope. The people around here get paid to design automobiles, not to > waste the company's time and money arguing with psychotic feminists, > arguing the merits of singles bars, or (worst case) posting juvenile, > often unintelligible nonsense to the ends of the earth. It is for this > reason that I have chosen to eliminate the talk/soc groups from our > feed. Besides, I was getting a little tired of coming in every > morning and seeing "file system full" on my console screen. > Jim is quite correct in his attitude towards the missuse of the network that is shown by the contents of talk.bizzare and the soc. groups. In all the time I have serviced these news feeds I have only seen an increasing load of verbal orgasm and primadona screaming matches. This is not to say that ALL of the material is trash, just an ever increasing percentage AND volume. YES! we have shut off the talk and soc groups. This leaf was installed as an information resource for this area of Ford and only exists to serve that purpose. We could no longer justify the time and expense of accepting the TRASH! > In closing, I would say that talk.bizarre can best be thought of as a > luxury. It is in no way vital to the well being of the net, or the > people posting to it. 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. > > Jim Sitek Thanks Jim! ron tribble ...mibte!ccd700!ron
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
mfs@edison.GE.COM (Pissed Off @ Communistic Site Dictators) (03/04/88)
In article <131@ccd700.UUCP>, ron@ccd700.UUCP (ron) writes: > > put up with all this self righteous bullshit from the people who are ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Ain't that the pot calling the kettle black ? > > > > Jim Sitek > > Thanks Jim! > ron tribble And to think, I never used to read this newsgroup ! What entertainment!
greg@gryphon.CTS.COM (Greg Laskin) (03/07/88)
I'll take pity on our trans-continental friends and limit this to North America. In article <129@ccd700.UUCP> jim@ccd700.UUCP (J. Sitek) writes: >I get paid to support Usenet (among many other things). I won't say >that talk.bizarre is any *less* worthy of my time than the aforementioned >soc groups. They are all *equally* unworthy of my time, period. Am I >a fascist sysadmin? Perhaps. Do I care if that's what you think of me? >Nope. The people around here get paid to design automobiles, not to >waste the company's time and money arguing with psychotic feminists, >arguing the merits of singles bars, or (worst case) posting juvenile, >often unintelligible nonsense to the ends of the earth. It is for this >reason that I have chosen to eliminate the talk/soc groups from our >feed. Besides, I was getting a little tired of coming in every >morning and seeing "file system full" on my console screen. > Should we collectively worry about what Jim thinks of us? Let's examine the latest available information from the UUCP map: #N ccd700 #S fortune 32:16 #O Ford Climate Control #C Jim Sitek, Ron Tribble #E ccd700!jim, ccd700!ron #W ccd700!ron (ron tribble); Wed Aug 26 10:58:55 EDT 1987 # ccd700 mibte(DAILY*3) The map entry for Jim's site is a bit old but it appears that ccd700 is, at best, a leaf node. While I respect Jim's right to do whatever he wants with the system he administers and to the people who read the news at his site, I would submit that his pontifications are pretty irrelevent to the overall flow of net traffic. In other words, Jim is hand waving. I seen several postings from administrators announcing that for various reasons, mostly seeming to revolve around the content of a group or something an individual poster to a group posted, they were going to strike the big blow and axe various groups from the systems they administer. Unquestionably, that is within their purview. By dropping the big one, one would expect that these administrators have solved their problem. No longer do these groups impact on their machine resources, communications budgets or threaten the work ethic of their user. Why then do they feel the need to proclaim their rightiousness to the rest of us? Do they really feel they need to justify their actions to us? Nay, I suspect there is a hidden agenda in these postings. -- Greg Laskin "When everybody's talking and nobody's listening, how can we decide?" INTERNET: Greg.Laskin@gryphon.CTS.COM UUCP: ihnp4!scgvaxd!cadovax!gryphon!greg rutgers!marque!gryphon!greg codas!ddsw1!gryphon!greg
david@pacbell.UUCP (David St.Pierre) (03/08/88)
In article <2795@gryphon.CTS.COM> greg@gryphon.CTS.COM (Greg Laskin) writes: >I'll take pity on our trans-continental friends and limit this to >North America. I assume you mean intercontinental, but who has time to use a dictionary when there's talk.bizarre, eh? > >In article <129@ccd700.UUCP> jim@ccd700.UUCP (J. Sitek) writes: >>I get paid to support Usenet (among many other things). I won't say ... text deleted ... >> >Should we collectively worry about what Jim thinks of us? Let's >examine the latest available information from the UUCP map: >The map entry for Jim's site is a bit old but it appears that ccd700 >is, at best, a leaf node. While I respect Jim's right to do whatever OK, if you want to hear from a bigger site, I've enclosed my stats for a week from the two machines I maintain at the bottom of the article. Along with one or two other sites, I provide the majority of the UUCP-based news traffic in northern California. I am not an official backbone because I don't like bureaucracy (if it can be helped ... I work in a big one) and don't like the instant notoriety which seems to come with the annointment. 'Sides, I don't need a title to provide support for others. >I seen several postings from administrators announcing that for >various reasons, mostly seeming to revolve around the content >of a group or something an individual poster to a group posted, >they were going to strike the big blow and axe various groups >from the systems they administer. Unquestionably, that is >within their purview. By dropping the big one, one would expect >that these administrators have solved their problem. No longer >do these groups impact on their machine resources, communications >budgets or threaten the work ethic of their user. Are we dripping heavy sarcasm here or what? Most companies do have an invisible line dividing good taste from bad. I've had to defend netnews once. One manager wanted netnews pulled from all machines. I succeeded in keeping it alive and well but I feel that some *one* person would always be held accountable for our use of news. So I've adopted the golden rule. My machine, my rules. I don't know if there's a parallel here or not, but I'll note that over 180,000 Californians think that freedom of speech stops with Dial-A-Porn calls and are requesting complete 976 blocking. I suspect that there are similar figures around the US. People are saying "while you may have the right to say what you want, I don't necessarily have to give you unrestricted access to me {home, company}. >Why then do they feel the need to proclaim their rightiousness >to the rest of us? Do they really feel they need to justify >their actions to us? Nay, I suspect there is a hidden agenda >in these postings. Interesting. My preference is to take action and not broadcast it to the world. It's nobody's business but mine and the people I feed. However, your criticism seems too self-serving to ignore. Reaffirming or rephrasing the original comments, I'm: tired of running low or out of i-nodes tired of running low or out of disk blocks tired of getting mail from my downstream neighbors about the same tired of 6-12 modems going non-stop (literally) for days on end tired of my downstream feeds complaining about 8-hour uucp connections tying up their more limited dial connections tired of endlessly babysitting netnews, recovering feeds, etc Maybe talk.bizarre isn't the first or only problem area. All I know is I've done about everything I can think of short of removing newsgroups to keep news flowing and providing full feeds to those who ask. Now I think I have to "give them the axe, the axe, the axe" =============================================================== Netnews statistics for pacbell from Feb 29 01:28 to Mar 7 06:17 System Accept Reject Junked Xmit to Control % total % rejct LOCAL 0 0 0 14 0 0% 0% amdahl 46 33 0 334 16 0% 41% att-ih 878 2264 0 6134 5 20% 72% comdim 0 0 0 34 0 0% 0% ctnews 1 6 0 33 0 0% 85% disapollo 0 0 0 16 0 0% 0% dplace 1 0 0 9764 0 0% 0% eeg 0 0 0 7465 0 0% 0% gladys 7 5 0 27 0 0% 41% ista 0 0 0 5041 0 0% 0% jtphilli 0 0 0 84 0 0% 0% kdq 0 0 0 21 0 0% 0% lamc 8 4 0 0 2 0% 33% latenite 0 0 0 8042 0 0% 0% local 2 0 0 0 0 0% 0% maxepr 2 0 0 584 0 0% 0% pb2esac 1 0 0 11199 0 0% 0% pbcast 0 2 0 0 0 0% 100% pbhacker 0 0 0 165 0 0% 0% pbhya 284 0 0 11199 0 1% 0% pbhyb 0 0 0 11199 0 0% 0% pbhyc 4 0 0 11199 0 0% 0% pbhyd 0 0 0 11199 0 0% 0% pbhye 3 0 0 11199 0 0% 0% pbhyf 45 0 0 11199 1 0% 0% pbhyg 13 0 0 11199 0 0% 0% pbody 6 0 0 298 0 0% 0% pbsaint 0 0 0 943 0 0% 0% pbsdts 0 0 0 87 0 0% 0% pcbox 1 0 0 2323 0 0% 0% ptsfa 11248 84 0 1280 35 75% 0% pyramid 7 9 0 51 0 0% 56% qantelham 0 0 0 97 0 0% 0% rencon 0 0 0 24 0 0% 0% safari 0 0 0 34 0 0% 0% tandem 1 0 0 12057 0 0% 0% topacbell 0 0 0 4 0 0% 0% vixie 3 0 0 0 0 0% 0% xptty35 0 0 0 23 0 0% 0% zorch 4 6 0 30 0 0% 60% TOTALS 12565 2413 0 144601 59 100% 16% Total Articles processed 14978 Netnews statistics for ptsfa from Feb 29 00:50 to Mar 7 00:16 System Accept Reject Junked Xmit to Control % total % rejct LOCAL 0 0 0 13 0 0% 0% amdahl 64 95 0 42 2 1% 59% ames 10751 270 0 752 36 77% 2% belltec 0 0 0 3128 0 0% 0% cfcl 0 0 0 11335 0 0% 0% cogent 0 0 0 11367 0 0% 0% cpro 0 0 0 11645 0 0% 0% dual 0 0 0 11686 0 0% 0% eeg 1 384 0 3181 0 2% 99% hippo 0 0 0 11335 0 0% 0% hoptoad 23 370 0 9959 5 2% 94% ihnp4 2 319 0 3544 0 2% 99% ista 0 16 0 2249 0 0% 100% lamc 7 3 0 11335 2 0% 30% laticorp 0 0 0 11335 0 0% 0% lll-lcc 7 88 0 833 0 0% 92% lll-tis 145 204 11 875 3 2% 58% local 12 0 0 0 0 0% 0% maps 0 0 0 83 0 0% 0% maxepr 0 0 0 291 0 0% 0% nonvon 0 0 0 11335 0 0% 0% pacbell 1001 113 0 11060 5 7% 10% pmt1 0 0 0 2625 0 0% 0% pyramid 24 62 0 47 1 0% 72% rencon 3 21 0 11343 0 0% 87% rtech 0 0 0 32 0 0% 0% safari 0 2 0 0 0 0% 100% ski 0 0 0 4520 0 0% 0% trane 0 0 0 11335 0 0% 0% unet 0 0 0 11335 0 0% 0% varian 30 4 0 11657 1 0% 11% vixie 0 0 0 11335 0 0% 0% well 16 177 0 11335 1 1% 91% TOTALS 12086 2128 11 202947 56 100% 14% Total Articles processed 14214, deadlock 1 -- David St. Pierre 415/823-6800 {ihnp4,sun,ames,pyramid}!pacbell!david
jim@ccd700.UUCP (J. Sitek) (03/09/88)
This is a reply to C J Silverio. In the interest of brevity, I have excluded both my fairly rational presentation of my point of view, and C J's juvenile, illogical, *insulting* rantings. C J, Nowhere in your posting did you refute even one small point that I made. Just what, exactly, was *your* point? Do you have a problem with the way I administer my system? Too bad. *I* am a system administrator. Are you? I doubt it because if you were, you would realize that there is more to the job than simply making sure that self centered *users* like yourself can read the bizarroids. Grow up, kid. If you do, you will discover that "anarchy, creative thought and ... VOLUME", as you interpret them, are nothing more than collegiate buzz-words, and there is a big bad, corporate world out there that doesn't have time for your shit. I went to college too, then I grew up. Jim Sitek
jim@ccd700.UUCP (J. Sitek) (03/11/88)
In article <2795@gryphon.CTS.COM>, greg@gryphon.CTS.COM (Greg Laskin) writes: > > > Should we collectively worry about what Jim thinks of us? > [Thoughtful posting deleted. If you wish to review it, look it up.] > > Why then do they feel the need to proclaim their rightiousness > to the rest of us? Do they really feel they need to justify > their actions to us? Nay, I suspect there is a hidden agenda > in these postings. > Damn right there is. Being a leaf node, we obviously don't have to justify our policies to anyone, save perhaps our users. However, are we not within our rights when we challenge the "VOLUME, VOLUME, VOLUME" mentality running wild in certain groups? Or should we simply ignore the posted threats to "take over the comp groups"? These issues are as real to us as they are to backbone sites. Not everyone is running this on a VAX, you know. Perhaps I was not as clear as I could have been. My opinions of certain high volume groups have been posted, and quoted in your article. However, I did not blow off these groups because *I* did not like them. I did it because I didn't feel that we were getting any return on the time and money it took to support them. How can I justify charging my client (Ford Motor Company) a rather hefty consulting fee for supporting what are, essentially, forums for baiting, and insulting people? Am I the only site trying to deal with *that* problem? As for proclaiming our rightiousness, I suppose it did come across that way. However, remember that my message was a response to someone who was claiming a divine right to do what they damn well please, while ignoring the consequences of their actions. It is *exactly* this same mindset that allows tons of toxic garbage to be poured into our rivers, lakes, and air. So here is a new phrase for you: Network Pollution, those postings which serve no identifiable purpose, other than to ruffle feathers, while showing a blatent disregard for their possible long range impact on network resources. Is this a stupid concept? Let's wait and see. You are quite correct in saying that my concerns have very little impact upon network traffic in general. However, I don't feel that our being a leaf site, should diminish the validity of my opinions concerning the general health of the net, or those attitudes that I find disturbing. Nor should this preclude me from posting them. Finally, we are working on providing news feeds to at least three new sites. That is, unless we become further disenchanted and decide to permanently terminate our relationship with Usenet. Jim Sitek Disclaimer: I speak for myself. My views do not necessarily represent the views of the Ford Motor Company.
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
silverio@ronzoni.berkeley.edu (C J Silverio) (03/22/88)
In article <136@ccd700.UUCP> jim@ccd700.UUCP (J. Sitek) writes: Aha! See what I find festering in the news... more of Sitek's power-mad ranting. Are you one of those who thinks alt groups aren't good enough for the blue-suited world? I'm sending followups there, if you care to follow, because you belong in alt.flame. >This is a reply to C J Silverio. In the interest of brevity, I have >excluded both my fairly rational presentation of my point of view, and >C J's juvenile, illogical, *insulting* rantings. What's a matter, poor little boy, your *feelings* get hurt? See how open minded I am, that I admit that administrator-types might have feelings. >C J, Nowhere in your posting did you refute even one small point that I >made. Just what, exactly, was *your* point? Do you have a problem with >the way I administer my system? Too bad. *I* am a system administrator. >Are you? I doubt it because if you were, you would realize that there is >more to the job than simply making sure that self centered *users* like >yourself can read the bizarroids. Grow up, kid. If you do, you will >discover that "anarchy, creative thought and ... VOLUME", as you interpret >them, are nothing more than collegiate buzz-words, and there is a big >bad, corporate world out there that doesn't have time for your shit. You can administer your system ANY way you please, if it makes you feel good about yourself and enough of a man to kick the dog when you get home. I had a pleasant, instructive, open-minded chat with a sys admin (yes, Sitek, over the age of 40, if that's it takes to establish legitimacy with you) who told me his views: he loves the idea of the net, of the free flow of information, and the open forum for discussion. He doesn't PRESUME to dictate what does or does not belong there. The USERS do that, not the administrators... which is why votes are held for the establishment of new groups. The USERS support talk.bizarre and other talk/alt groups, which is why they exist. Got it, Sitek? My sys admin friend went on to discuss a possible reason why he might not be able to support talk groups: money. I quote: "In some companies it can come down to either laying someone off or stopping the expense. I would rather do most anything than lay someone off." This is a LEGITIMATE reason for the administrator of a specific site to make that choice. Note that he did NOT rant and rave that the content of a group was inappropriate or otherwise. That's not his position to judge. He worries about what his job is. MY POINT (you listening, Sitek?): you have no right to judge what belongs on the net or not. If the USERS show sufficient interest, then your job is to administer their needs. People like you, if left alone long enough, would eliminate from the net all articles but those that expedite the smooth running of the net. People like you are dangerous to the spirit of the net. >I went to college too, >then I grew up. Didn't learn anything there, though, did you? (And, BTW, what makes you assume I'm still in college? Or unaware of the big bad greedy corporate world? Though I must admit I'm under 30. Does this make me a non-person, Sitek?) >Jim Sitek | C J Silverio | KENT FOR PRESIDENT | ucbvax!brahms!silverio | I can't think of anything. My creativity is all | ucbvax!bosco!silverio | shot. I've got writer's block too. I wanna die.
jim@ccd700.UUCP (J. Sitek) (03/24/88)
C J, mind if I just call you C? C, once again you supply ample evidence that your self-centered attitudes are paralleled only by your total ignorance concerning *system* administration (as a superset of *Usenet* administration). Now for a little joke. What's the difference between C J's postings, and a bad disk block? You can spare the bad block. Later kid, Jim PS. Just remember, C, you never know who you may end up working for.