Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site azure.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!petrus!bellcore!decvax!tektronix!teklds!azure!chrisa From: chrisa@azure.UUCP (Chris Andersen) Newsgroups: net.singles Subject: Re: responses to 'monopolizing net.singles' Message-ID: <422@azure.UUCP> Date: Mon, 19-Aug-85 02:59:17 EDT Article-I.D.: azure.422 Posted: Mon Aug 19 02:59:17 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 24-Aug-85 13:38:03 EDT References: <895@vax2.fluke.UUCP> Reply-To: chrisa@azure.UUCP (Chris Andersen) Distribution: net Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR Lines: 151 Summary: Well, I will make one last posting concerning this issue and that will be my last followup to it (not saying very much since I'm off the net in two weeks anyway :-). In article <895@vax2.fluke.UUCP> cassidy@fluke.UUCP (Rion Cassidy) writes: > >I got 11 responses, 8 via e-mail and 3 were posted in net.singles. >Six of the responses agreed with my position, 5 disagreed. > >Some typical comments were: > >'He has written some of the most well composed articles in the newsgroup...' Aww, gee, shucks, *blush* :-) > >'He has every right to post whatever he wants.' Well, here I would disagree with you. One of the most important FACTS that so many people seem to forget about the net is that it is a privelage, not a right. There is a MAJOR difference. > >'Its quality not quantity that counts...' I agree completely. But what if some people need more quantity in order for their quality to show up? I acknowledge that I was pontifacting (a little) earlier on this summer, but I don't believe I have been as much a problem of late. If anything, my volume has been considerably lower then I would like. > >'I get fed up with those who post two articles in a row with the same subject >line...' Then tell them (this is advice to everyone). One of the most useful suggestions I got out of this incident was to STORE all your responses to ALL the postings on a single subject somewhere, then go through and edit the response into a clear message, and finally post it as one followup to all the articles instead of doing it in pieces. I haven't had the opportunity to do this yet, but maybe next time I get on the net, I will. > >'There's an awful lot of drivel finding its way into this newsgroup!' This is a purely subjective comment. Who's to define what is drivel and what isn't drivel? But I will agree that there is a tendency for dead-horse beating on the net. > >I honestly feel that most of the people who disagreed with me didn't >understand my real point (e.g. 3 of those who disagreed posted instead of >e-mailed), but considering how inflammatory I was being, it isn't surprising. Okay then, what was your real point? (seriously) You seem to acknowledge that you were being inflammatory and I think it puts you in a positive light. I wish more people would be willing to admit when they might have gone overboard. I do think, however, that next time you have a gripe against one individual, either send that gripe by e-mail (if it is specific). If it is a general statement, then by all means post it. But putting one person in the spotlight (me or anyone else) can only hurt any chances your statement has. >I was making no comment at all on the content of Chris's articles. My >thoughts on the articles' relevance or literary quality are irrelevant to the >point I was trying to make. Of course everyone has the RIGHT to post whatever >they want, and as much as they want. Of course I can 'n' the articles I don't >want to read. Trouble is, folks, if you all posted a few articles to every >subject you had a slight interest in every day, there'd be more articles than >anyone could even 'n' through, let alone read. Let me summarize two points: 1) What was the point you were trying to make? and 2) The net is not a right, it is a privalege. > >Often it seems that 80 or 90 percent of the articles are responses (Re:) and I >wonder what it would be like if people responded via e-mail like they should. >It's an ego builder to see your own article posted, but if no one has time for >it after 'n'ing through fifty others you won't really get the attention you >deserve. Yes, it was something of an ego builder (actually, more like an inflater (which is dangerous when the time of the "COMING OF THE SHARP PIN" happens along)). I can remember after my first few postings on the subject of physical affection (and especially after the story I told about my trip to one sf convention) I got a lot of very positive letters that made me feel very good. However, soon after I got one letter that wasn't negative, but it did criticize my volume of posting. Well, my balloon burst and it hurt me a lot more then it should have. I was THOROUGHLY depressed for a few days and ended up posting an article stating that I wouldn't post as many messages as I used to (can you remember when?). I didn't really get out of my low point then until I spent the evening at a concert with someone I met through this very newsgroup (Hi there you-know-who). After that my spirits picked up for a while, and then took another nose-dive. I guess my psyche has been in a very fragile mood this summer because it has taken such little things to bring me down. But I am feeling much better now and I think that this newsgroup has definately made it much easier for me to face the world out there. The discussion on self-actualization helped me a lot in this area because it made me realize just how much I can take control of my life. I think the single greatest thing I have learned this summer (and am still learning even as I type this) is that what my future is, IS up to me and now one else. I can't sit around any longer and wait for things to happen because there is no such thing as a free ride. >One respondent made the comment 'find something significant to worry about'. >I am far from the only one who feels this is a significant problem as >evidenced by the responses. If this is so insignificant, why did this guy >bother to respond, especially by posting ? A lot of people seem to feel that >the term 'insignificant' is applicable to many of the topics currently found >in net.singles ! I would never consider any topic under discussion in this newsgroup as "insignificant". It may not have much relevance to me (such as the marriage discussion) but I would never sink so low as to consider what someone else considers to be important as "insignifcant". >I'd like to publicly apologize for any damage I've done to Chris's ego, since >I know I probably got a little carried away. The original article was more of >an appeal for other's opinions than a condemnation or statement of policy, so >I still stand by the position it embodied. You did absolutely now damage to my ego (partly because I have virtually no ego to speak of). Though I'm still wondering why you couldn't have presented your opinion in a much less confrontational way. Well, that's enough rambling for now :-). Whether I will be back on the net once I get back to school is still an unknown (I certainly I hope I can). Thanks to all of you. Life, Love, Laughter, and Hope, Chris Andersen -- tektronix!azure!chrisa SPECIAL NOTE: I have only 2 weeks left on this computer. I don't know when I will be able to get back on the net after I go back to school. Send me e-mail if you would like to keep in touch.