Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!munnari.oz.au!goanna!giaea!doug
From: doug@giaea.gi.oz (Douglas Thomson)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: TR3-6.ZIP - Operate PC from a remote location, or monitor
Summary: looks like this was just a news software problem
Message-ID: <772@giaea.gi.oz>
Date: 8 Jan 91 02:49:29 GMT
References: <1637.w8sdz@WSMR-SIMTEL20.ARMY.MIL> <743@giaea.gi.oz> <4497@vela.acs.oakland.edu>
Organization: Monash University College Gippsland, Churchill 3842, Victoria, AUSTRALIA.
Lines: 66

In article <4497@vela.acs.oakland.edu> w8sdz@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Keith Petersen) writes:
>doug@giaea.gi.oz (doug thomson) writes:
>> When I came back, I was most surprised to find a posting claiming to be
>> from me, including the full overview of TeleReplica! A closer inspection
>> of the headers revealed the message id to be:
>>     <1637.w8sdz@WSMR-SIMTEL20.ARMY.MIL>
>> which seems to suggest it was actually posted by Keith.
>
>It was reposted by me, and clearly marked as such when it left
>SIMTEL20.  Apparently the news software at ucbvax striped the line
>I added to the header which said:
>
>Comment: Reposted by Keith Petersen

This possibility did not occur to me, although with the benefit of hindsight
it probably should have. My complaint then is purely against the relevant
news software, and not directed at Keith at all (my apologies to Keith for
not giving him the benefit of the doubt)! As I said in my first posting,
I was happy to see the information posted, just surprised that it appeared
to have been posted by me...

>I'm sorry you were upset by my reposting.

I was not so much upset as embarrassed: although I think the information was
worth posting, I feel that as the author I am unlikely to be sufficiently
objective in making that judgment, and I prefer to leave the final
decision about whether and how much of the information I provide gets
posted to someone less biased. It is for this reason that I would not have
posted such a long summary myself, even though I am pleased to see similar
information posted about other people's programs.

>When uploaders provide a
>longer description in addition to the usual one-liner, I frequently
>repost their upload announcements.  Early last year I had been
>including their messages in a posting with my name on it.  That
>resulted in questions coming to me which really should have been sent
>to the author of the program.  Since I receive as many as 50 messages
>per day I had to do something.  The repostings have solved that
>problem and I would like to continue with them.

I can quite see the logic in this, and fully approve - provided the news
software does not strip the line that lets people know this has been
done!

>In the future please do not include information in your announcements
>which you would not post under your own name.  That should solve the
>problem.  In my opinion, users appreciate knowing what features program
>offers so they can decide whether to take the time to download it.

Unless I clearly state otherwise, anything I send to any kind of
moderator is intended to be posted *if the moderator agrees with me
that the information is worth posting*. Since it was Keith's intention
that this should have been clear, and the problem was merely caused
by some faulty news software, perhaps the sooner the topic is dropped
the better!

>If the readers of this newsgroup would rather not see detailed
>descriptions I will just stick to posting the recent uploads and the
>monthly uploads listing.

Count my vote in favor of posting the detailed descriptions - the less
time, effort and bandwidth I have to waste obtaining programs that prove
to be not quite what I wanted the better!

Doug.
(doug@giaea.oz.au)