drn@pinet.aip.org (donald_newcomb) (02/06/91)
From: drn@pinet.aip.org (donald_newcomb) Here is the synopsis of responses to my posting titled "MINIMIZE" on the topic of reducing the size and number of postings to sci.military . Most replies voiced a terse concurrence: >From: novak@mother.idx.com (Dave Novak) >>2. Make your included quotes from previous articles as small as >> possible. >Yes, but we should discourage those who do not quote at all. A brief quote >helps to remind the reader of the context. [I probably should have said, "as small as possible while] [still reflecting the context of your reply." drn] >From: bobmcc@tcs.com (Bob McCormick) >I appreciate your comments. Another idea would be for those with >good references to summarize things, like the artical on Patriot. >I'm guilty of this..but it is hard when books are at home and >computer is at work. >From: Eric Edward Moore <em21+@andrew.cmu.edu> >Much too much traffic. >3 days some 130 messages. I can't read all that. >No way. >I can't even get through all the RE: lines. >From: Chesley Reyburn <cmr@cvedc.prime.com> >Concur! Everyone keep it brief. Please! Then I received this long and thoughtful reply from Tom Comeau. He urges a much less chatty newsgroup dedicated to the principles of scholarly research. I, personally, agree with him, with some reservations that I have added at the end. >From: "STOSC::TCOMEAU"@SCIVAX.STSCI.EDU (Tom Comeau @ Space Telescope Science Institute) >A lot of bandwidth and misinformation would be spared if people would >follow one simple rule: Include references for all statements of 'fact.' >If you read something in AvLeak, go find the issue in which you read it, >and include the issue date in your posting. There are three major >reasons for doing this: > 1) Other people will know that it came from a published source; you > didn't just make it up. > 2) Other people will be able to read the entire article themselves, > rather than the [BRIEF] excerpt in your posting. > 3) You will have a chance to read the article again, and see if if > really says what you think it did. >If you have a military or military/industrial-complex background, citing >to a nonclassified source is a way of covering your <self>. You should >of course avoid including comments like "and that's the _right_ number", >but the rest of us assume you probably wouldn't knowingly quote a source >that was wildly out of touch with reality. See also the Guidelines for >the group. [See my remarks on this after this article. drn] >If you have personal knowledge of some information, think for a moment >about whether your knowledge is subject to security classification. If >not, cite personal knowledge (noting the security issue) and give the >net an idea of how you came by the knowledge. (When I was down south >rooting the Argies out of Goose Green...) >The result of all this is that you have taken a small amount of time to >improve the quality of your prospective posting. Now re-read the >newsgroup and see if anyone else has posted substantially the same >material. If not, or _especially_ if what they've posted is wrong or >misleading, mail the posting off to Bill. >The rest of us will then run off to check your references, and nod >sagely was we confirm the knowledge you've provided. Or we'll decide >that your interpretation of the data was wrong, or that we have a better >reference, and we'll respond to your posting with new information. >Since we don't want to appear to be flaming, we'll include references of >our own, and the cycle will start anew. >The immediate results are: > - Wide dissemination of _sources_, other than sci.military, for >information about the technology that backs the art of war. > - Arguments about military technology based on 'facts' we can check >for ourselves, rather than hazy recollections of something my cousin's >brother's uncle heard in the Marines. Or the Coast Guard. > - Reduction of straight duplication, as we take the time to check >sources and discover someone beat us to it. >Over the long run, however, something more important may happen: We may >find that rather than arguing over petty details, we legitimately >disagree about military technology, its employment, and its future >directions. At this point I started a discussion about why quoting from unclassified sources _will not_ cover your <self> but it ran into several pages and I said I wasn't going to do that any more. If you need to know why, ask your security officer or send me a self-addressed-stamped e-mail. I will send you the explanation directly. Donald Newcomb drn@pinet.aip.org (601) 863-2235