parnass@ihu1h.UUCP (Bob Parnass, AJ9S) (11/01/84)
> I am posting this for your comments. > > A couple of years ago when I first was exposed to the wonders of USENET, > one of MY biggest problems was not knowing WHO the players were. ...... > These days I have a better idea of who's who, but I can sympathize > with the poor schnook who would ignorantly flame rabidly at Mark Horton or > Guy Harris.... > > I propose a VOLUNTEER standard for all of us to identify ourselves (or at > least to give some idea of where we're coming from) to other USENET readers. .... > > Below is a proposed method of codifying ourselves. The final code (USECODE?) > will fit on one line (maybe the LAST line?) and could be included as part of > the body of a posted article. One clear advantage of this is that it could > help each of us avoid problems like responding to 4.2bsd questions with > SYSTEM V answers or mailing expert level answers to rank novices. > My comment: the concept has a pretentious tone. -- =============================================================================== Bob Parnass, Bell Telephone Laboratories - ihnp4!ihu1h!parnass - (312)979-5414
ag5@pucc-k (Leo Buscaglia) (11/02/84)
<<>>
Perhaps a field which describes (within a list of given selections)
what a particular person *does* at his/her site. Why? Because (given the
two questions shown above) I don't really fit into either classification
(for the record, I am a student consultant. While I do programming, the
programming which I do has no connection with my employment at PUCC).
This might let us know if we're dealing with a general student,
a tech writer, a consultant, etc. Not *all* computer professionals write
programs and design systems...
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Henry C. Mensch | User Confuser | Purdue University User Services
{ihnp4|decvax|ucbvax|purdue|sequent|inuxc|uiucdcs}!pur-ee!pucc-i!ag5
{allegra|cbosgd|hao|harpo|seismo|intelca|masscomp}!pur-ee!pucc-i!ag5
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"It's a radio for deaf-mutes!"jdb@qubix.UUCP (Jeff Bulf) (11/03/84)
> These days I have a better idea of who's who, but I can sympathize > with the poor schnook who would ignorantly flame rabidly at Mark Horton or > Guy Harris.... A fine clear statement of motivation for the idea. > So, my code would be: > > 66:82:83:4:y:y:4.2bsd:computer,newsletter,editor,fortran,cobol,basic,kaypro,cpm A similarly clear exposition of why this one is likely to die aborning. "I heard some say 'You better run away' others say 'You better stand still" 64:83:83:y:?:%:&:... aaah the h*ll with it -- Dr Memory ...{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!decwrl!qubix!jdb
wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (11/05/84)
This classification system seems to me to be too slanted toward computer professions. I say that even though my job title is "Computer Programmer Analyst"; while the main participants in groups like net.unix or net.micro would be well-served by such an emphasis, it has no bearing in groups without a professional orientation (net.consumers, net.rec, etc.) and is inappropriate in groups aimed at other professions (net.bio, net.physics, etc.). Perhaps something as sinmple as a cumulative total of the years of a person's USENET experience (or even just "net experience" -- I was active on the ARPANET for 6-7 years before I had USENET access), and the list of keywords, would serve the desired function? It's probably highly unlikely that any but a few would end up using this in any case, though. Will