Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site bbncca.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!bbncca!sdyer
From: sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer)
Newsgroups: net.motss
Subject: Re: mod.motss
Message-ID: <993@bbncca.ARPA>
Date: Sun, 7-Oct-84 18:46:22 EDT
Article-I.D.: bbncca.993
Posted: Sun Oct  7 18:46:22 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 8-Oct-84 03:15:38 EDT
References: <617@ubc-vision.CDN>
Organization: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Cambridge, Ma.
Lines: 51


	>As much as I sympathize with you, I just have to disagree because I
	>don't believe in 'benevolent dictators'. This newsgroup is supposed
	>to be a discussion group. It's [sic] intended function is very
	>different from that of (ex) net.general. I don't see any 'anarchic'
	>situation here, just a lot of 'noise'. Why couldn't the true
	>contributors of net.motss ignore that noise and respond to the more
	>reasonable arguments?

Then you don't believe in moderated newsgroups, either.  One of the main
functions of a moderator is to remove "noise" as well as to ensure that the
discussion follow the groundrules for the news group.  The moderator for
mod.movies, shall we say, is acting appropriately when a discussion about a
sci-fi movie becomes a discussion of Heinlein, and redirects the postings
to net.sf-lovers.  The moderator for mod.movies is acting appropriately
when a question about "Casablanca" generates 50 identical responses, and
only posts a single representative response.

So, too, for the moderator of mod.motss, if the group is ever realized.  I
am redistributing to you the reason and purpose of net.motss from its first
posting, to remind you just how far the group has strayed lately.  The
problem is not only Brunson and Arndt and the occasional other crazies who
crop up now and again, but the "righteous" of us, myself included, who, by
counterflaming, further degrade the quality of the discussion.  Nor do our
targets ever listen.  Responses of any type merely reinforce their
behavior, as they observe with infantile wonder their ability to stir up
their environment.  I think it is probably futile to encourage people to
ignore such postings, given the nature of the net.

"Noise" prompts people to unsubscribe to net.motss.  "Noise" causes
people to type 'n' before they even read an article.  This "noise"
obscures cogent points in a discussion by pandering instead to emotion
and invective.

Reasonable arguments?  Show me one, and I'll respond to it.  I haven't
see one yet.  Rather, we have Brunson (and fellows) who should
be written off by everyone else as a fool, and we have Arndt who
has no arguments at all, but rather a diffuse antipathy towards gay
people and an anti-social manner, veering between stark-raving
madness (witness his last response to Gerber) and parodies of
sociological citation.

Regardless of the fate of {net,mod}.motss, which I'll discuss in a
later message, I invite those of you who can discern cogency in
any of this "sludge" (to recapitulate a phrase of Ron Rizzo's)
to do these people one better, and restate what you think was
important therein in a manner more suitable for public discussion.
-- 
/Steve Dyer
{decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbncca.ARPA