Path: utzoo!attcan!lsuc!ecicrl!ecijmm!jmm
From: jmm@ecijmm.UUCP (John Macdonald)
Newsgroups: news.misc
Subject: Re: In Moderation
Message-ID: <295@ecijmm.UUCP>
Date: 12 Jul 89 04:14:35 GMT
References: <3300@epimass.EPI.COM> <197600001@inmet> <14403@bfmny0.UUCP> <3749@viscous.sco.COM> <24A91A67.28396@ateng.com> <3579@looking.on.ca> <24B4CCD7.5183@ateng.com> <3600@looking.on.ca> <24B8CEB3.19453@ateng.com>
Reply-To: jmm@ecijmm.UUCP (John Macdonald)
Organization: R. H. Lathwell Associates, Elegant Communications, Inc.
Lines: 28

In article <24B8CEB3.19453@ateng.com> chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>[...]
>Anterior intends to use the thoughts and works of hundreds of altruistic
>givers -- the best and brightest of Usenet -- just to turn a buck.  I'm
>saddened that Mr. Goodfellow sees Usenet, not as a community to be joined,
>but as a natural resource to be exploited.

Or "Anterior intends to suppress the thoughts and works of thousands of
noisy incompetents -- the worst and dullest of Usenet -- and to turn a
buck for doing so.  I'm happy to see that Mr. Goodfellow sees Usenet,
not as a totality which must be endured, but as a natural resource waiting
to be uncovered."

Why is it so hard to accept the value of paying someone to take out the
trash?  Surely you can understand that someone might feel that the gain
in being able to read all of their favourite newsgroups in 20 minutes per
day instead of 6 hours per day is much greater than the combined value of
all of the additional interesting articles they would have found by doing
their own searching?

Are there many people on the net who truly read everything that goes by?
At 4 Meg per day and growing fast, most readers must be skipping some
newsgroups.  Any newgroup that one is only marginally interested in is
pointless to try and scan - very few groups avoid flamefests, new user
questions, etc., so it is not worth your while to read a group enough
to find the meat unless you are really interested in the topic.
-- 
John Macdonald