Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att-cb!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!porthos.rutgers.edu!webber From: webber@porthos.rutgers.edu (Bob Webber) Newsgroups: news.admin Subject: Re: Now it Can Be Told Keywords: WARNING: Fairly long posting Message-ID: Date: 29 Mar 88 07:06:33 GMT References: <149@ccd700.UUCP> Distribution: na Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 82 In article <149@ccd700.UUCP>, jim@ccd700.UUCP (J. Sitek) writes: > > I would like to take this opportunity to say "thanks" to those people > who participated, albeit unknowingly, in an experiment. This All of life is an experiment. So what? You want to pretent you are the one running the experiment, but it is really the dolphins. > He determined (correctly) that being a leaf node, dropping these groups > would have absolutely no effect on the network in general. In fact, the > only consequence of these actions was to *reduce* volume in these > groups by eliminating postings from this site. Mr. Laskin further The loss of postings from your site may well mean significant loss to the richness of the net. This is hardly ``no effect.'' Also, every time some *d**t stands up and says that he has decided to do something, 30 other *d**ts sit down and say, hmmm maybe I should too. So you announcing the action even in the absence of the action has significance. > Other net.brethren, most notably C. J. Silverio, Matthew Weiner, and > Bob Webber chose a more fallacious approach. Why did you include me here. I distinctly recall agreeing with you in your opinion of the weakness of Matt's comments as well as your own comments vis a vis your employer. Gee, you try to help some people.... > They lack the faculties to determine the implications of my > actions, which for them were non-existent. This actually goes Absolutely wrong, as mentioned above. > They either fail to understand the purpose of news.admin, or > choose to ignore it. Since a description of each newsgroup is > furnished as part of the news software, one must conclude that > they chose to violate the ground rules of this group. Ground rules? The description supplied in our local software simply says: ``Comments directed to news administrators.'' So the only thing that would appear to be ruled out is comments directed at non-news administrators, i.e., if you suspect that someone isn't a news admin, you shouldn't reply to them in this group. Which one of the people I directed a comment towards was not a news admin? > By viciously attacking someone whom they have never met, simply Are vicious attacks permitted after meeting? Do you really think you are an appropriate judge of what is the norm for attacks on this net when you intentionally ignore much of the net? It seems to me that you do just as much ``attacking'' as any one else. > because this person dares to hold opinions which differ from > theirs, they prove that concepts such as freedom of speech, and > personal liberty have no meaning to them. Actually you have completely lost me here. You claim at first that people should not pay attention to your posting since you are an insignificant leaf node and then you claim that the people who realized this and posted it shouldn't have because it constituted an ``attack'' to call you an insignificant leaf node. Anyway, as pointed out earlier, the best ``attacks'' appeared on alt.flame which is exactly what that group is all about. Anyway, it is because freedom of speech and personal liberty have meaning that we accord opinions like yours a hearing instead of just ignoring them as Eric Fair recommended we do in his posting. > What does all of this mean? For me, this proves that these individuals > have absolutely no respect for this network, the people who maintain it, > or the principles on which it was founded. They view it as a diversion, I, for one, have great respect for the principles on which this network was found it. The current people who are preside over its degeneration probably get more respect than they deserve as it is. The uucp, nntp, etc. links that constitute the network itself have not yet laid claim to an artificial personhood requiring the potentiality of respect. > PS. Don't bother following up. You have provided more than enough > data already. ditto. ---- BOB (webber@athos.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!athos.rutgers.edu!webber)