Xref: utzoo news.groups:3339 comp.sys.mac:15134
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att-cb!att-ih!pacbell!hoptoad!unisoft!gethen!farren
From: farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren)
Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Do we *really* need comp.binaries.hypercard?
Message-ID: <876@gethen.UUCP>
Date: 17 Apr 88 09:41:28 GMT
References: <6600@dhw68k.cts.com> <4472@cup.portal.com>
Reply-To: farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren)
Organization: There's Unix there in Oakland
Lines: 50

In article <4472@cup.portal.com> Ilan@cup.portal.com writes:
>I totally disagree with the rationales presented:
>  1. The massive amounts of HyperCard stacks on BBS around demonstrate
>    the tremendous amount of interest in HyperCard.

Yes, it also demonstrates the foolishness of sending all those binaries
over the net when they are easily available from BBS systems everywhere.

>The fact that only 5 stacks get posted on the net is an indication that
>something is wrong with the postings process.

No, it is an indication that many systems just plain don't want to
waste (yes, waste) the resources necessary to handle multiple megabytes
of binaries of interest only to a small percentage of the net.

>The HyperCard group is necessary for those who are curious as to how
>others write and demonstrate HyperCard stacks.

Necessary?  Bushwah.  Are you seriously trying to claim that Usenet
is the only way to learn this stuff, or even a *GOOD* way?

>definitely needs its own unmoderated group.

Like hell.  If comp.binaries.mac.hypercard is unmoderated, I would
predict that it will never get sent very far.  Certainly won't on
*MY* machine.

>2. By suppressing HyperCard stacks that are "deemed" undesireable
>some good products also get tossed away (human nature).  Its
>a shame to watch the baby getting tossed out with the bath water.

Baby with the bathwater?  More like the baby with the Atlantic Ocean.

>  3. The HyperCard group vote has been tallied and the YESs have it.
>    The backbone must create this group or change its rules for all
>    groups retroactively, how many groups would survive that change ?

As many as were performing a useful function without costing the
entire net huge amounts of money, I would suspect.  Get two things
straight - the vote in NOT a binding contract, it does not REQUIRE
the backbone to do anything.  And the backbone is not required to
change anything if it chooses not to.  The historical precedent is
pretty clear, and shows that the backbone cabal is generally quite
reasonable.  Too bad if they do something YOU don't like, though,
then they're fascist war-mongering pigs, eh?
-- 
Michael J. Farren             | "INVESTIGATE your point of view, don't just 
{ucbvax, uunet, hoptoad}!     | dogmatize it!  Reflect on it and re-evaluate
        unisoft!gethen!farren | it.  You may want to change your mind someday."
gethen!farren@lll-winken.llnl.gov ----- Tom Reingold, from alt.flame