Xref: utzoo news.misc:1180 comp.sources.d:1739 news.groups:2373
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!amdcad!ames!pasteur!agate!ig!uwmcsd1!bbn!rochester!ur-tut!sunybcs!rutgers!topaz.rutgers.edu!brandx.rutgers.edu!webber
From: webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber)
Newsgroups: news.misc,comp.sources.d,news.groups
Subject: Re: why alt.sources? (Definitive answer, some history)
Message-ID: <752@brandx.rutgers.edu>
Date: 23 Jan 88 08:44:16 GMT
References: <171@sea375.UUCP> <1459@sigma.UUCP> <2989@arthur.cs.purdue.edu> <292@yunexus.UUCP>
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 23

In article <292@yunexus.UUCP<, oz@yunexus.UUCP (Ozan Yigit) writes:
< 	... and a make file. It is rumored that someone
< 	once said "If a job is worth doing, it is worth doing well".

Actually, the rule is: If you think a job is worth doing, do it!

< In article <736@brandx.rutgers.edu< webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) writes:
< <However, if you have a source that you want to share with a more discerning
< <group of readers who can fend for themselves instead of be nurse-maided by a
< <moderator, you should consider posting to alt.sources.
< 
< 	Since when did it become fashionable to insult the
< 	readership of the net, on the basis of their interest [or
< 	lack thereof] to carry/read certain newsgroups ? How do you
< 	know what a *more discerning* net reader wants to read ??
< 	Do tell us. (Make sure to cross post to all newsgroups.)

There is no more insult in what I said than there is in your claim
(and the claim of the person to whom I was replying) that the sources
in one group are of better ``quality'' that the sources in the other
group.  After all, what's goose for the gander is sauce for the asparagus.

----- BOB (webber@athos.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!athos.rutgers.edu!webber)