werner@ut-ngp.UUCP (Werner Uhrig) (03/25/86)
I took the day off to catch up with "net.news.group" ((-:
and see that nothing has changed there. Same topics, a few new faces,
same verbosity which has me unsubscribe real quick again (disappointed,
because I'd like to keep up with *IMPORTANT* things, but can't afford to
wade through these long articles with lots of back-references on a 1200
Baud line to get to the "good parts". Nope, still no UNIX workstation
in my life, which picks up the news unattended at night for me ...
I think Brian's data-collection program is a really worthwhile effort,
(I hope he gets to publish something for degree or fame (-:)
but I already sent him 25 caution-notices (so it seems) for what makes
the data less than trustworthy - taking my particular way of following what's
going on in the networld, he'll get the wrong impression what articles are
of importance to me (I read things MOST important to me on ARPAnet bboards,
print other things to read in the bath-tub, pick up sources from floppies
that other people downloaded, etc; anyway, my .newsrc doesn't tell the
story. on the other hand, what I do is less than typical, probably, who knows.)
I see, that recently there was another vote about net.general (which any
sane person doesn't read, anyway) - and you folks decided to keep it around
a while longer. So I decided to add to my amusement by looking at the messages
currently available in that group. Below is the result.
This voting business is awfully presumptious anyway, because it's done
among a small group of die-hards that are willing to wade through this
flood of articles in this group, nothing representative here that I can
see. I'd love to see a group like "mod.votes" where one gets to see
simply the proposition (no arguments) and replies with a VOTE.
temporary creation of groups like "net.votes.topic" for those brave and
willing to read and argue a lot about things would be desirable, but
while willing to listen to some arguments sometimes, I'm like most of you
and have made up my mind about a significant percentage of things, both
on this net as life in general. I'd even read "mod.votes.topic",
would even be willing to moderate some such discussions (depending on
the topic), just to make sure that significant arguments, both PRO and CON,
receive proper attention, but reading net.tv to vote AGAINST a group like
net.tv.latenight (or for a group net.tv.PBS) or participating in a forum
like net.politics to generate a sufficient number of articles on a topic
like the European Market Community, to get permission to create a sub-group
net.politics.EEC - that is definitely not within the hours of my day.
My thanks to all of you who are working so hard to keep this net going.
I am hoping to see a USENET that I can support like my local PBS-station;
let me know when and where I can send my yearly check to support a
non-profit organization with a net of back-bone sites to maintain a flow
of news and improved software.
With Brian's results, I can now even calculate how much money
each group costs per month and pay for the ones I want and can afford to
support. I see that the top-10 (in terms of cost) are not on my list
and I'm glad for that, at least. Few people that write a lot which few others
want to read, someone commented. I, for one, am glad those groups exist,
else they'd probably post those messages in groups I like to read.
(HURRAY for net.tv.latenight). There exists a common misconception here,
demonstrated in a recent discussion about splitting net.books (or was it
net space?) If a group has a lot of articles that you DON'T want to read,
that is also a good reason to create a new sub-group for some few other
articles, because else, you'll simply unsubscribe from the larger group
(like I did with net.general and net.news.*) and stop caring and participating.
Thanks to Laura for making this good point (any many others).
Maybe Richard Stallman gets done with GNU in the foreseeable future and
could be interested in another "pet"-project, like a computer network that
is run like a Public Utility - but one TRUELY owned by the public.
I'd love to see a cable-net work to compete with Cable-TV and the Bell-sisters
owned and managed in the public interest and for the common good.
Well, politically, I am living in the wrong decade it seems, because this just
doesn't seem possible to pursue - not in this century, anyway.
... and here I am, contributing to the evil I complain about. Bye for now...
please send me mail, I doubt I'll be around on this group to see any
follow-ups.
Cheers, ---Werner
Contents of net.general :
2193: Informix (RDS) users mailing list
2194: What's a mail address for Swarthmore?
2195: Computer Virus Explanation (a try)
2196: References to computer viruses
2197: Software Engineering Environments Conference : Programme
2198: dave letterman
2199: Disk Packs For Sale
2200: homo spud
2201: netnews poll -- did jss take north's job?
2202: MUMPS on ETHER
2203: DL newsgroup
2204: a test, please skip
2205: a test,please skip
2206: Where did these references appear?
2207: Info on X400 needed, URGENTLY
2208: name parsing
2209: Looking for path to Digital Sound Corporation
2210: Goodbye to Usenet
2211: Path to Sasha Nizhnikov
2212: IBM PC for sale
2213: DEC-2065 For Sale -- $120K
2214: garbage? how can you tell?
2215: "The VDT Debate" over possible reproductive hazards.
2216: bring back the big bands
2217: not a test
--------------------------------------------------------------