Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!execu!sequoia!dewey
From: dewey@sequoia.execu.com (Dewey Henize)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Proposing a new "shareware.*" news heirarchy
Message-ID: <11021@sequoia.execu.com>
Date: 16 Mar 90 01:14:30 GMT
References: <5002@macom1.UUCP> <514@limbo.Intuitive.Com> <35243@watmath.waterloo.edu> <1376@polari.UUCP>
Reply-To: dewey@sequoia.execu.com (Dewey Henize)
Organization: Home for Recalcitrant Hackers
Lines: 80

In article <1376@polari.UUCP> root@.UUCP (The Super User) writes:
]
]  Brad:  The majority of responses said "No shareware posting on the network".
]Every sysadmin who identified themselves as a sysadmin said "no shareware
]on  the network".  The second most popular view was "Post shareware to 
]another group" -- 23 out of 40 said "post it to biz.shareware".  
]
]  "..A good majority..." could lead people into believing that there was
]substantial support for usenet on the network -- when the reading I made
]from the  data was "2/3rds of the respondents either do not want shareware
]on the network at all, or if it is allowed, do not want it in  the core
]comp groups, but want it segragated to a biz or shareware heirarchy."
]  80 out of 120 said that.  

My god, do you handle your users with such disregard to what is SAID?

The MAJORITY did not say "No shareware posting on the network".  According
to what you even posted, the majority would take it as is or in a separate
group.  That's not "No shareware posting on the network".  Can you handle
that?

Gee, guess I'm not a sysadmin - or too subtle for you.  I said that root
didn't impress those of us with root on lots of systems - but I sure as
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^   <- your clue
hell did not say "no shareware on  the network".  I said I thought the
whole controversy was foolish (harsher words) and that those who objected
could push for a separate group if they didn't want it.

Now, if you already KNOW how you want something to come out, you twist what
people say and throw a few 'mistruths' in the blend and hope no one catches
you.  Your results were:

  No, it should not be allowed:                         45
  Yes, it should be allowed with restrictions:          40
  Yes, it should be allowed:                            32
  Unclear:                                              3
 -----------------------------------------------------------
  Total                                                 120

From that, assuming its correct, 37% said no.  That's not a majority
any way you look at it.  Now, you blithly added in the 'restrictions'
group as 'no', yet go on with these quotes:

Shareware should be in comp.sys.*.sharware (11)
Shareware should have subject line stating shareware (5)
Shareware sources OK, but not binary (5)
...
Moderated newsgroup for announcements of shareware + maillist (2)
Shareware only in  moderated groups to prevent shareware  floods (1)


None of those comments translates into "No shareware posting on the network"
- unless of course the person counting the poll has already decided what to
claim as the output of the poll.  You could, if you shrink down the usual
definition of 'the network' claim that the line:
  Shareware should be in biz.* not in comp,misc,etc group. (23)
limits it, but only if you throw out all the groups other than the 'big 7'.
Is THAT your claim?

This is the kind of thing that gives 'polls' a bad name.

To make it quite clear...  I am a sysadmin.  Is that identification enough?
I don't care if shareware is in mainstream groups or subgroups or in the
biz heirarchy.  I DO care when someone misrepresents others.  Especially
when one being misrepresented is me.  Don't waste time, yours or others, with
polls if you're going to twist the results.  You think shareware costs?
Try transmitting falsehoods - and in a mainstream group at that.  How nice.

Dewey Henize
System and Network Administrator    |   <- for those that need it.  doesn't
News Administrator.  Senior DP Staff|   <- impress me, but some need titles.
Execucom Systems Corp
news sites execu.execu.com and sequoia.execu.com


-- 
| Execucom and I often have different ideas.  THESE are mine, ok?  Ok.        |
|               dewey@execu.com or uunet!sequoia!dewey                        |
|Don't reword the question into such generality that it appears absurd, that's|
|a puerile trick.  -Barry Shein | But this IS Usenet!! - me                   |