Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!umix!umich!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: <140@ccd700.UUCP>
Date: 10 Mar 88 16:13:25 GMT
References: <7080@uunet.UU.NET> <1918@mind.UUCP> <1156WGRCU@CUNYVM> <2795@gryphon.CTS.COM>
Distribution: na
Organization: Ford CCD, Dearborn Michigan
Lines: 54
Summary: These are my last comments
	 on this subject.

In article <2795@gryphon.CTS.COM>, greg@gryphon.CTS.COM (Greg Laskin) writes:
> >
> Should we collectively worry about what Jim thinks of us?  
> 
[Thoughtful posting deleted.  If you wish to review it, look it up.]
> 
> Why then do they feel the need to proclaim their rightiousness
> to the rest of us?  Do they really feel they need to justify
> their actions to us?  Nay, I suspect there is a hidden agenda
> in these postings.
> 
Damn right there is.  Being a leaf node, we obviously don't have to
justify our policies to anyone, save perhaps our users.  However, 
are we not within our rights when we challenge the "VOLUME, VOLUME,
VOLUME" mentality running wild in certain groups?  Or should we 
simply ignore the posted threats to "take over the comp groups"?
These issues are as real to us as they are to backbone sites.  Not
everyone is running this on a VAX, you know.

Perhaps I was not as clear as I could have been.  My opinions of
certain high volume groups have been posted, and quoted in your 
article.  However, I did not blow off these groups because *I* did
not like them.  I did it because I didn't feel that we were getting
any return on the time and money it took to support them.  How can I
justify charging my client (Ford Motor Company) a rather hefty
consulting fee for supporting what are, essentially, forums for
baiting, and insulting people?  Am I the only site trying to deal with
*that* problem?

As for proclaiming our rightiousness, I suppose it did come across that
way.  However, remember that my message was a response to someone who
was claiming a divine right to do what they damn well please, while
ignoring the consequences of their actions.  It is *exactly* this
same mindset that allows tons of toxic garbage to be poured
into our rivers, lakes, and air.  So here is a new phrase for you:
Network Pollution, those postings which serve no identifiable purpose,
other than to ruffle feathers, while showing a blatent disregard for
their possible long range impact on network resources.  Is this a
stupid concept?  Let's wait and see.

You are quite correct in saying that my concerns have very little
impact upon network traffic in general.  However, I don't feel that
our being a leaf site, should diminish the validity of my opinions
concerning the general health of the net, or those attitudes that I
find disturbing.  Nor should this preclude me from posting them.

Finally, we are working on providing news feeds to at least three
new sites.  That is, unless we become further disenchanted and decide
to permanently terminate our relationship with Usenet.

Jim Sitek

Disclaimer: I speak for myself. My views do not necessarily represent
	    the views of the Ford Motor Company.