Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!columbia!caip!sri-spam!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!XX.LCS.MIT.EDU!wlim From: wlim@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU Newsgroups: mod.politics Subject: Re: Quality vs. Quantity Message-ID: <12240607824.25.MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU> Date: Sun, 21-Sep-86 01:07:00 EDT Article-I.D.: RED.12240607824.25.MCGREW Posted: Sun Sep 21 01:07:00 1986 Date-Received: Sun, 21-Sep-86 18:20:41 EDT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: wlim@xx.lcs.mit.edu Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 79 Approved: poli-sci@red.rutgers.edu From: "Keith F. Lynch" Our current moderator does the same thing. Why don't you find it equally objectionable? No I don't think our current moderator does the same thing. It so happens that you don't agree with him in many points. I presume you have read the messages by contributors asking JOSH not to append to their messages. There were even those who complained about him being trying to be lord of the last word. We have yet to hear such things about our current moderator. (-: On second thought, we might start to hear such things from perverse individuals. :-) His [JOSH's] replies always made sense. Only to those who are pro-libertarianism. I would have given the statement more credit if you are not a libertarian. I sincerely doubt your objectivity in this case, given your libertarian leaning. Oh, come on! I read, store, and reply to my mail on a machine that I own....mumble...mumble....mumble.... Messages are stored in all sites that are on the mailing list. If there are 50 of them, say, the total number bytes consumed is 50 times the length of a message. The correct charge for each message should be based on (1) the total amount space used in all these sites and (2) the duration the space is used. There are other cost factors too like maintenance, traffic congestion, etc. I won't even bother to discuss your precious time wasted on all this flaming, as you (like everybody else) do this on your time and on your own accord. The owners of many machines on the net(s) are willing to let people use small amounts of resources at night and on weekends to further the cause of man's knowledge. As long as they don't abuse that privilege. If a person with a tourist account were to use up megabytes of disk space for flaming over the ARPAnet and causing a bottle neck in the mailing system, he/she would lose that account almost immediately. The same applies if that person uses the account for profit or for indulging in political campaigns. I take it that you agree with my recent messages to this list? It is interesting that you now contest the LENGTH of my messages, rather than their CONTENT! I assume you wouldn't bother to do the former if you were able to do the latter. A rather presumptuous statement! I find the content of most of your messages not worth their lengths. Some of them make sense but a lot of them don't. When you can't argue against a point, instead of sounding a graceful retreat, you tend to wimp out by making some silly assumptions to make the problems go away or by digressing. Furthermore there is enough reasonable replies by other people to your messages to keep you busy for quite a while. It is hard to believe that none of them is more reasonable than yours. Libertarians like everybody else don't have a monopoly on the solutions to the all the world's problems. Neither do they have a monopoly on intelligence, reasonableness, sensibilities and wealth. Some people are already finding out that you are just going to incessantly "beat" them over the head with more and more bytes irrespective of whether you managed to convince them of your point of view. (For example, the current discussion has a high potential of being a dragged out flame war.) To avoid being dragged into a never-ending flame war with you, they keep their silence. Hence, silence does not mean consent, or in this case belief in your political philosophy. Note that this is not a problem with all libertarians, but rather with some libertarians. There are some shorter messages by libertarians that make more sense than yours. If someone who is politically neutral were to use these arguments in parties and other social functions, he/she would sound more like a reasonable and intelligent individual than an obstinate egomaniac (no offense intended). Willie ------- -------