Xref: utzoo news.admin:1633 talk.bizarre:8822 alt.flame:1708
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!hao!gatech!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!wisner
From: wisner@eddie.MIT.EDU (Bill Wisner)
Newsgroups: news.admin,talk.bizarre,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Top 25 News Groups for the last 2 weeks (from talk.bizarre)
Message-ID: <8272@eddie.MIT.EDU>
Date: 24 Feb 88 23:35:46 GMT
References: <7080@uunet.UU.NET> <1918@mind.UUCP> <1156WGRCU@CUNYVM>
Reply-To: wisner@eddie.MIT.EDU (Bill Wisner)
Organization: MIT, EE/CS Computer Facilities, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 64

In article <1156WGRCU@CUNYVM> [god, no, not BITNET!] WGRCU@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
(Bill Rubin) grumps to news.admin:

>In going thru some files on system's news disk, trying to find room for new
>news because the disk had filled up, I found this dribble in talk.bizarre:

(article <7080@uunet.UU.NET>, newsstats@uunet.UU.NET)
>>          No. of        $ Cost  % of  Cumulative
>> Rank  Kbytes Articles per Site Total  % of Total  Group
>>    1  1175.9     696     36.75  3.5%     3.5%     comp.sys.ibm.pc (1.7)
>>    2  1066.7     948     33.33  3.1%     6.6%     soc.singles (3.0)
>>    3  1038.4     698     32.45  3.1%     9.7%     soc.women (2.9)
>>    4  1035.2    1263     32.35  3.1%    12.7%     talk.bizarre (6.2)

(article <1918@mind.UUCP>, greg@mind.UUCP (yes, that greg, that Nowak guy))
>>Congratulations to ALL for a FABULOUS effort. I believe 4th is the
>>highest we have EVER placed. But WORK at it, damnit! 31 more KB and we
>>would have beaten SOC.SINGLES!
>>
>>I did my part. 95 KB. Now you do yours.

(back to our friend Bill)
>Now, I have never read talk.bizarre, and I know there are some sites
>which do not carry the talk. groups, but we have decided not to do this
>here, because we feel that it is important that we carry as much as
>possible.
>
>But when I see this kind of garbage, posted not once but three times, I
>have to wonder if we are making the correct decision. I would ask if
>people realize the overhead involved in each message they post, but the
>obvious answer in this case is that they could care less. At minimum,
>talk.bizarre postings are going to get a much shorter life at my site.

This, students, is a textbook case of WHINY ADMINISTRATOR. Yes, that's
right, WHINY ADMINISTRATOR. Apologies to greg.

I would ask if Mr. Rubin realizes that every site is quite free to drop
talk.bizarre, anytime, if it doesn't like the content. I would ask if
Mr. Rubin realizes that some people, incredibly, ENJOY the newsgroup,
high volume notwithstanding. I would ask if Mr. Rubin has bothered to
look at another viewpoint: many find the group entertaining (if they
didn't, it wouldn't rank fourth, for chrissake) and realize that USENET
is quite a bit more than source code and discussions about pointer
alignment or some such.

I would even ask if Mr. Rubin has the tiniest shred of a sense of humor.

Alas, the obvious answer in this case is no.

Are all users of this network to cower in terror, every time they even
dare to consider posting an article, mortally afraid that there might
be too much overhead involved? I don't like comp.sys.ibm.pc, and just
look at that revolting message volume. Let's remove it from the net.
What? The readers? Oh. Let them read the mailing list.

In short, Mr. Rubin, kindly keep your whimpering complaints to yourself
rather than air them before a worldwide audience. Most of us could care
less. Now, if you have a legitimate problem, I am quite certain that
quite a few people would quite cheerfully offer you assistance, but
this tripe? Why, do you realize what overhead was involved in transmitting
your bitching to over 6,000 sites?

I'm done preaching. I'll go post 96K to talk.bizarre now. Good day.

..b