Xref: utzoo news.admin:14820 news.software.b:8079
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!spool.mu.edu!uunet!mcsun!ukc!slxsys!ibmpcug!mantis!mathew
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (Giving C News a *HUG*)
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.software.b
Subject: Re: Really funny jokes being missed
Message-ID: <RVHT35w164w@mantis.co.uk>
Date: 31 May 91 15:22:14 GMT
Article-I.D.: mantis.RVHT35w164w
References: <1991May31.024036.24462@ni.umd.edu>
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.
Lines: 47

louie@sayshell.umd.edu (Louis A. Mamakos) writes:
> In article <7moR331w164w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (CNEWS MUST DIE!) 
> >I fixed the broken software I was using as soon as I found out about the
> >error. I would expect anyone else to do the same. THE POINT is that I didn't
> >find out about the error for weeks, because C News made no attempt to tell m
> >that I had failed its unnecessarily stringent requirements.
> 
> Just two pointa after following this wonderful discussion:
> 
>  * What the #$^&* do you want for free?  Just what does anyone pay for
>  cnews that justifies demands upon the authors to change fundmaental
>  design decisions on their part?

I don't remember people *asking* for C News to silently delete articles. I
suspect that it was one of those design decisions which seemed like a good
idea at the time.

If C News wishes to be pedantic about the headers, it should report its
findings to someone who can do something about it. If it can't send its
little pedantic reports to someone who can do something about the problem,
then it shouldn't be pedantic.

>  * If you feel so strongly about the problems that cnews has, why not fix
>  it yourself, and offer to distribute your version to sites on the net that
>  are run by folks that agree with your point of view.

I have already offered to spend my own spare time fixing the official C News
for the next release. All I ask is access to a suitable UNIX machine in
Cambridge.

> I suppose that if you don't like the way this USENET is run [by
> consensus, sort of], then go off and start your own.

I'm quite happy with the way Usenet WAS run. C News seems to have changed the
situation overnight.

>                                                      I for one am tired
> of hearing pot shots at positions and opinions that have been clearly
> stated on many occasions.

If they are clearly stated *wrong* positions, why not continue to take
pot-shots at them?


mathew