Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2.fluke 9/24/84; site vax2.fluke.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!fluke!cassidy
From: cassidy@fluke.UUCP (Rion Cassidy)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: responses to 'monopolizing net.singles'
Message-ID: <895@vax2.fluke.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 15-Aug-85 11:51:04 EDT
Article-I.D.: vax2.895
Posted: Thu Aug 15 11:51:04 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 18-Aug-85 04:31:32 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA
Lines: 59



For those of you who have been wondering about the controversy I started by
posting the complaint about Chris Anderson (monpolizing net.singles), the mail
I've been getting on the subject has finally trickled off to nothing, so I
thought I would summarize the responses and reiterate my position.

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:

'...the only thing I know about Chris is that I always 'n' him...'

'He has written some of the most well composed articles in the newsgroup...'

'He has every right to post whatever he wants.'

'Its quality not quantity that counts...'

'Funny, I was thinking the same thing about [name omitted]...'

'I get fed up with those who post two articles in a row with the same subject
line...'

'There's an awful lot of drivel finding its way into this newsgroup!'


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.

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.

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.

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'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.

		Rion Cassidy  @ fluke