Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site alice.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!alice!jj From: jj@alice.UUCP Newsgroups: net.news,net.followup Subject: Re: net overload-- comments and suggestions Message-ID: <3438@alice.UUCP> Date: Tue, 5-Mar-85 10:08:44 EST Article-I.D.: alice.3438 Posted: Tue Mar 5 10:08:44 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 6-Mar-85 03:14:32 EST References: <2404@nsc.UUCP> <3429@alice.UUCP>, <5160@tekecs.UUCP> Organization: New Jersey State Farm for the Terminally Bewildered Lines: 42 Xref: watmath net.news:3228 net.followup:4596 Jeff Winslow suggests that the reason for my perception of the net's SNR going to 0 might be based on my presumed interest in various subjects, an effective ad-hominem attack if I ever saw one...I do suppose that I should elucidate on what I consider a "low SNR". I personally see a clear difference between articles that exhibit 1) Clearly thought out, nicely explained, and factually based arguments, and 2) Emotional rhetoric, manipulitive rhetoric, deliberate noise injection, etc, REGARDLESS of what point is espoused. When I see the articles of type 2) becoming prevalent, and THEN becoming almost universal, I give the net a low SNR rating (sort of like TV news). When I see clearly thought out arguments, I increment the SNR up a bit. If such articles are common (I remember one short spell of several months several years ago, when net.flame was the only place home to polite discussion, mostly because it was poorly read) I give the net a high SNR. Certainly it's a perceived rating, not any absolute rating, but I suggest to Mr. Winslow, etc, that a LOT of people are making the same observation of late, so it's a COMMON PERCEPTION. Given that we are talking about a perceptually based measure, and the measure is generally agreed as failing, a problem (by defination) exists. Mr. Winslow also later suggests that I may perceive that the net is disputation beyond reason because I notice only disputatious articles. Mr. Winslow should consider that I toss almost all articles that I even suspect to be of a disputatious nature immediately without reading even the first page (which is 66 lines for this terminal...), and that I still find the "second order" dispute to be extreme and unwarranted. I respectively submit that contending a problem does not exist on the current net is analogous to digging a hole in the sand below high tide and burying one's head. -- TEDDY BEARS SURVIVE EVEN IN TODAY'S BULL MARKET. HUG YOURS, IT NEEDS YOU! "...other side, the other man's grass is always greener, some are ..." (allegra,harpo,ulysses)!alice!jj