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.