Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!eos!aurora!labrea!decwrl!pyramid!fmsrl7!mibte!ccd700!jim
From: jim@ccd700.UUCP (J. Sitek)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Top 25 News Groups for the last 2 weeks (from talk.bizarre)
Message-ID: <129@ccd700.UUCP>
Date: 1 Mar 88 19:26:05 GMT
References: <7080@uunet.UU.NET> <1918@mind.UUCP> <1156WGRCU@CUNYVM> <1870@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>
Organization: Ford CCD, Dearborn Michigan
Lines: 143

In article <1870@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>, greg@phoenix.UUCP writes:
> In article <11838@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> esj@beach.cis.ufl.edu (Eric S. Johnson) writes:
> >>I'm done preaching. I'll go post 96K to talk.bizarre now. Good day.
> 
> >Real bright move Bill. You just go right ahead. Id give talk.bizarre
> >about a one week life span if it ever hit #1. I know I would get rid of
> >it here if that happened. And Im quite sure many other sites would too.
> 
> Soc.singles was # 1. Soc.women was #2. Would you "give them a one week
> life span" if they hit #1? If not, why not? I don't read soc.women or
> soc.singles; How can you say that what I get out of talk.bizarre is
> any less worthy of net.support than what the soc.singles or soc.women
> readers get out of their newsgroups?

I get paid to support Usenet (among many other things).  I won't say
that talk.bizarre is any *less* worthy of my time than the aforementioned
soc groups.  They are all *equally* unworthy of my time, period.  Am I
a fascist sysadmin? Perhaps.  Do I care if that's what you think of me?
Nope.  The people around here get paid to design automobiles, not to
waste the company's time and money arguing with psychotic feminists,
arguing the merits of singles bars, or (worst case) posting juvenile,
often unintelligible nonsense to the ends of the earth.  It is for this
reason that I have chosen to eliminate the talk/soc groups from our
feed.  Besides, I was getting a little tired of coming in every
morning and seeing "file system full" on my console screen.

> Are you seriously saying that the
> fact that our method of letting off steam is less valid than the soc.
> peoples'?

I put it to you that Usenet does not exist to provide you with a 
psychological relief valve.  Your method for letting off steam is,
again, no less valid than the soc. peoples' (sic).  THEY ARE 
*EQUALLY* INVALID.  You go check any bit of documentation ever written
on the subject of Usenet.  I will bet that *nowhere* will you find
that Usenet exists to provide anyone with a method of letting off
steam.  In fact, one of the biggest problems I see with Usenet is that
too many people view it as a screaming forum.  Here is a news flash
for you:  Usenet access is *not* a constitutionally guaranteed right.
It is a privilege.  If it is abused, I'm all for cutting it off.
This business of shooting for number one on the volume chart is not
only counterproductive to the intents of Usenet, it is also typical
of intensified adolescent behavior.  Why don't you try something
constructive, like becoming number one in quantum physics, or even
interpersonal communication?

> When you change your position to one of campaigning for the
> end of any non-comp group that moves to #1, then you'll be
> believeable.

By taking this to it's logical conclusion, we can see that this will
eventually lead to the extinction of *all* non-comp groups.  I don't 
think anyone has suggested this.

> As long as you're just targeting talk.bizarre, you DO
> sound like a whiny administrator with no sense of humor.

While *you* sound like a whiny college student who should spend more
time in English class, and less time crying about the potential loss
of your favorite toy.
>  
> >Personally I think the talk/soc and even the alt groups are good
> >things. They add a little humanity to the net. 

More like mysogeny.
> 
> Glad you agree. So go bother soc.singles and soc.women. You want mail?
> Tell soc.singles or soc.women that you'll start a movement to delete
> the groups if they "accidentally" post too much and come out ahead of
> comp.sys.ibm.pc? [comp.sys.ibm.pc had 1176 KB in the latest stats,
> soc.singles had 1067, and soc.women had 1038, so it's quite possible
> for either of these two groups to place first.] I repeat, once you
> start complaining about volume in general, and not just talk.bizarre,
> you'll be believable.

Jesus H. Christ,  when will people learn that they can't justify their
abuse of a resource by pointing out other, possibly greater, examples
of similar abuse?  Two wrongs don't make a right.  
> 
> > I even read ole
> >talk.bizarre when Im in the right mood, and once or twice posted.  But
> >the attitude that Mr Bill and some other posters to talk.bizarre seem
> >to take realy bugs me. What can mass posting prove?  "Hey, I only
> >posted 10K today; ok, ill just post strings vmunix to talk.bizarre. 
> 
> Talking about VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME is one of the traditions of
> talk.bizarre; do you seriously believe that the massed minions of
> talk.bizarre are struggling mightily day and night to post volume and
> only come up with 1035 KB for the month?

Yes! 1035 KB is a *lot* of verbal nothingness.

> Give us more credit than
> that. No one has been posting strings vmunix (but thanks for the idea!
> :-); standards are a lot higher than that. If you really read
> talk.bizarre, if you were familiar with our CULTURE, you'd know that
> "VOLUME" is just an abbreviation. What we really mean is VOLUME with
> CONTENT.

*That* is rich!  Volume with content.  Laughable, if it weren't so 
expensive. Of course, *you* wouldn't know about *that* would you?

> Trust me on this -- NO ONE on the net gets flamed more
> mightily than a talk.bizarre poster who posts VOLUME without content.
> If you understand the concept of running jokes on the net, accept the
> fact that the talk about VOLUME on talk.bizarre is one of them.  If
> you devoted a moment's thought to the matter, you'd realize that
> restraint IS being exercised, otherwise we WOULD be #1. The fact that
> volume is so high just testifies to the fact that talk.bizarre is a
> VERY popular group AMONG ITS READERS. Sure, the per-reader cost is
> high, but so is the articles posted per reader -- meaning that people
> are getting something out of the group and contributing to it.
> 
> >I hope the readers and posters in talk.bizarre remember this:  Posting
> >anything and everything, just to become the #1 newsgroup, will end the
> >group. Its that simple. No one who has to worry about disk space or
> >phone bills will even think twice.
> 
> Read the group for a while, learn the in-jokes, and *then* decide if
> we're posting nothing but gibberish. Don't make assumptions based on 0
> evidence. Sysadmins should have better judgment.

*I* have read the group.  *I* have learned the in-jokes.  Talk.bizarre
is not so much a newsgroup, as a clique.  You speak of people being 
flamed for posting volume without content.  In reality, the people who
receive the worst flames, are the people who are not accepted by your
little clique.  For example, one Eric Madding was continually, publicly
chastised for posting his views to talk.bizarre.  Now, one may not
agree with Mr. Madding's views, but, the very name "talk.bizarre" does
imply that one may post whatever one wishes, even random keystrokes if
one is so inclined.  And I have seen postings in that group which were
exactly that.  Volume without content indeed.

> ...!seismo!princeton!phoenix!greg

In closing, I would say that talk.bizarre can best be thought of as a
luxury.  It is in no way vital to the well being of the net, or the
people posting to it.  However, when the people who pay the tab for
this luxury feel that it is being abused, they are within their 
rights to say so.  And they should be able to do so without having to
put up with all this self righteous bullshit from the people who are
the worst offenders.

Jim Sitek