webber@porthos.rutgers.edu (Bob Webber) (06/15/88)
In article <4342@medusa.cs.purdue.edu>, spaf@cs.purdue.edu (Gene Spafford) writes: > Some people have pointed out that there were 160 "no" votes for > comp.women. Correct. But there were also 272 "yes" votes -- from > people who felt the naming issue wasn't important enough to > keep from creating the group. Seems to me that 272 > 160, hmmm? > 272 is an a lot of people to express an opinion, too. Some people have pointed out that there were 87 ``no'' votes for comp.protocols.tcp-ip.eniac. Correct. But there were also 196 ``yes'' votes -- from people who felt the naming issue wasn't important enough to keep from creating the group. Seems to me that 196 > 87, hmmm? 196 is an a [sic] lot of people to express an opinion, too. > Some people holler about the "content" of comp.women not being > appropriate. They aren't the final judge of appropriateness (if anyone > is). There is a significant percentage of netters who believe > comp.women, as proposed, is appropriate for the comp hierarchy. Again, > over 270 people who expressed their opinions felt that the group was > appropriate enough in comp (or that the issue didn't matter). Some people holler about the ``content'' of comp.protocols.tcp-ip.eniac not being appropriate. They aren't the final judge of appropriateness (if anyone is). There is a significant precentage of netters who believe comp.protocols.tcp-ip.eniac, as proposed, is appropriate for the comp hierarchy. Again, over 196 people people who expressed their opinions felt that the group was appropriate enough in comp (or that the issue didn't matter). > Furthermore, how can people complain about the "content" when > the group hasn't even been created yet? Furthermore, how can people complain about the ``content'' when the group hasn't even been created yet? >... > Obviously, I'm pissed. [Hmmm. I've seen that phrase before. Didn't I tell you last time that the Usenet guide specifically says you shouldn't post while in the bathroom?] >..... I'm also in the minority on the backbone at the > moment, it seems. [Reminds me of a line from A Man For All Seasons when Thomas More tells young Roper that you don't want to go smashing down the laws to hunt out the Devil because someday when the last law is down and the Devil turns, there will be no place for you to hide. I hope you find being in the minority enlightening.] > ... The whole issue of naming needs to be > addressed at once instead of piecemeal and unfairly targetting this one > group. Further, the group is desired by a significant number of > people, even if named comp.women, and it shouldn't be held hostage by a > few admins who are upset that the vote didn't go their way, and > because the charter of comp.women doesn't fit their idea of "comp." ... The whole issue of naming needs to be addressed at once instead of piecemeal and unfairly targetting this one group. Further, the group is desired by a significant number of people, even if named comp.protocols.tcp-ip.eniac and it shouldn't be held hostage by a few admins who are upset that the vote didn't go their way, and because the charter of comp.protocols.tcp-ip.eniac doesn't fit their idea of ``comp.'' > The Usenet used to be a fun place. It also used to be a friendly, > cooperative environment. I used to enjoy it. Now we have people who > are willing to disrupt the whole net because other people have a > different conception of "comp" than they do. They are ignoring the > wishes of a clear majority of netters expressing an opinion, and > they're willing to be quite rude about it. They think the naming > scheme is so clearcut and perfect that they're willing to do > anything to "preserve" it against this "threat." The Usenet used to be a fun place. It also used to be a friendly, cooperative environment. I used to enjoy it. Now we have people who are willing to disrupt the whole net because other people have a different conception of ``comp'' than they do. They are ignoring the wishes of a clear majority of netters expressing an opinion, and they're willing to be quite rude about it. They think the naming scheme is so clearcut and perfect that they're willing to do anything to ``preserve'' it against this ``threat.'' > ... Now I'm getting abuse and frothing-at-the-mouth > behavior from some of the backbone admins I always thought were > reasonable folks. ... [Gee. Even I never thought that.] ----- BOB (webber@athos.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!athos.rutgers.edu!webber) [p.s., By the way, for those who are interested, comparing the voting lists on comp.protocols.tcp-ip.eniac to those of comp.women shows: of the 196 disenfranchised yes voters, 16 bothered to vote again (12 in favour of comp.women and 4 against) and of the 87 knee-jerk no voters, 23 bothered to vote again (7 in favour of comp.women and 16 against). Is there a statistician in the house?]
spaf@cs.purdue.edu (Gene Spafford) (06/15/88)
Bob, although there are some similarities in the cases, there
are some significant differences you failed to point out.
Not least of which is, as Weemba just pointed out, the fact
that there are no Eniacs on the net but there sure are a lot
of women on the net. I'm not going to bother trying to explain the
other differences because you simply refuse (or are incapable) of
understanding, and I don't enjoy wasting my time.
That's why people tend to ignore you: "Never argue with a fool --
people might not be able to tell you apart."
--
Gene Spafford
NSF/Purdue/U of Florida Software Engineering Research Center,
Dept. of Computer Sciences, Purdue University, W. Lafayette IN 47907-2004
Internet: spaf@cs.purdue.edu uucp: ...!{decwrl,gatech,ucbvax}!purdue!spafrichard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) (06/17/88)
In article <4349@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> spaf@cs.purdue.edu (Gene Spafford) writes: >Bob, although there are some similarities in the cases, there >are some significant differences you failed to point out. >Not least of which is, as Weemba just pointed out, the fact >that there are no Eniacs on the net but there sure are a lot And until we get TCP/IP up and running on them, there arn't likely to be, either. -- "Shrimp Ahoy" richard@gryphon.CTS.COM {backbone}!gryphon!richard