NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #19/NN_1992_19.iso/spool/gnu/misc/discuss/2840

Internet Message Format | 1992-09-01 | 7.5 KB

Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:2840 comp.org.eff.talk:5600 comp.unix.bsd:4948 comp.os.mach:1117 news.groups:17406
Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!uknet!daresbury!doc.ic.ac.uk!frigate.doc.ic.ac.uk!mjb
From: [e-mail] (Matthew J Brown)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.mach,news.groups
Subject: Re: AT&T Long Distance Boycott (was: BNR2SS, Mach, and The Lawsuit)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 1 Sep 92 15:33:24 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
Distribution: inet
Organization: Department Of Computing, Imperial College, London.
Lines: 141
NNTP-Posting-Host: oak7.doc.ic.ac.uk
In-reply-to: [e-mail]'s message of 1 Sep 92 13:08:00 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (William J. Vajk) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> Sean McLinden writes:
>>>[...] It [proposed boycott of AT&T -mjb] should be
>>>posted to ALL newsgroups as it affects all of us.
>>
>>It should NOT be posted to all newsgroups.
>>
>>First, it does not affect "all of us."
>
>I am once again dismayed at the responses made by supposedly
>intelligent individuals to affairs which do indeed affect all
>of us. Perhaps some people simply don't se the connections.

This has to be one of the most stupid suggestions I've seen recently
on the Net. Perhaps you and Sean think this issue is the most
important news ever. Maybe it is, to you. However, I'm certain that
the overwhelming majority of people would not agree.

IMHO this issue is only of much importance to computing professionals.
That means that posting to any newsgroup not computer-related is
totally stupid. Anyone who reads those groups and would understand
your argument, let alone agree with it, is highly likely to read a
more relevant newsgroup. Even within the field of computing, there are
large numbers of people out there who couldn't care less about this
issue - basically, anyone not interested in UNIX or the legal aspects
of computing. Since IMHO any posting calling for a boycott of AT&T on
this issue only stands a chance of being read, let alone agreed with,
in the UNIX newsgroups and a scattering of others like
misc.legal.computing, it would surely make much more sense to only
cross-post to those groups, and set follow-ups to one appropriate
group. Postings to other newsgroups will only result in your being
mail-bombed by irritated people.

And don't try to tell me 'but this issue affects *EVERYONE*.' Perhaps
it does, but so do infinitely many other issues. Imagine what it would
be like if anyone concerned about any of these issues posted to every
newsgroup under the sun. USENET would become unreadable. The point is
- the people on most newsgroups do not think that this issue concerns
them. Trying to convince them it does in this manner won't get you
anywhere.

>And someone else's trigger is tripped by the suggestion that ALL
>newsgroups have a posting explaining what is happening.
>
>But even more importantly, someone's trigger is tripped by AT&T
>bringing a lawsuit (their right, after all) all the while neglecting
>AT&T's hand in prosecutions of individuals who haven't a chance
>against the sort of clout weilded by prosecutors with a megalith
>like AT&T pushing them for prison sentences. Read comp.dcom.telecom
>for a while to read of other nastiness undertaken by AT&T now and again.
>Your response to effectively defend one of the worse villans in the
>western hemisphere seems misplaced to me.

Take it to alt.conspiracy or alt.paranoia.

>>Second, a huge number of newsgroups are clearly inappropriate for
>>this type of posting.  Readers of rec.music.gdead or sci.aquaria
>>or even comp.sources.unix really don't need to have "Boycott AT&T"
>>messages shoved in their faces.
>
>This is amusing. Some newsgroups are sacred and must remain untouched
>at any cost? Is Richard still on the net these days? I suspect he'd
>think the fact you included his sci.aquaria in the list a wonderful
>thing. (Frankly, I'm waiting for a proposal for comp.aquaria....computers
>for fish dontcha see, just to see Richard flex a little net.muscle [or
>is that net.mussel] again.....) But just to see this discussion grow a
>little more in the right directions, I have added news.groups to the
>distribution.

Don't be stupid. Bryan didn't mean anything of the sort. What he meant
was that inconsiderate and indiscriminate crossposting is foolish and
pointless. I repeat: anyone who gives a shit about these issues
already reads an appropriate newsgroup.

>>Third, it is extremely bad netiquette to indulge in massive
>>cross-posting.  It's annoying.
>
>You know, if I had the time I once had, this statement alone
>would be enough to make me crosspost to each and every available
>newsgroup. I am, in general, a polite person (though some goodly
>number of folks who know me only from usenet would probably
>disagree.) But on the other hand, I am sick and tired of the
>endless parade of people citing "inappropriate" and "bad
>netiquette." Frankly, I think that those statements are quite
>annoying, since you've broached the subject of "annoying."

This sounds like a 'Rules are meant to be broken. If someone asks me
to do something, I do the opposite on principle'.

Yes, rules are made to be broken. Since no-one can forsee every
situation, no-one can make rules appropriate to any situation.

Rules are not made to be thoughtlessly broken, however. If a rule or
convention exists, it does so because a person or group of people,
often people who knew their stuff, thought that it was a good idea. Be
very sure, before breaking such a rule, that you really do know better
than those who established it. Because you'd better be able to defend
your actions.

>>And in some (non-UNIX) sectors of
>>the net it wastes disk space -- you're talking about >1000 extra
>>articles if you include the alt.* groups.
>
>Excuse me while I giggle. Up above, in your text I clipped as boring,
>you mention that people who read news on systems other than UNIX
>probably aren't interested. Tellya, I am certain that administrators
>of systems which cannot link files would suddenly become VERY
>interested. You've come full circle on a logical plane. Shake hands
>with yourself and say hello.

Yes, they will become very interested. But only in dividing your body
into several major parts. They will, if possible, care even less about
the *contents* of your article than otherwise.

>If someone really wants to post to each of the newsgroups, you've
>offered absolutely no disuasive arguments yet. Did you want to try
>again, with brain engaged? Or is all you have to offer each and every
>of the same old tired lines of the litany.

I believe I have offered several arguments as to why this is a daft
idea. If none of them work, it's a hardware fault.

>>If you're confused about any of this, please read the articles
>>with the following titles in news.announce.newusers:
>>
>>Bryan Curnutt
>>[e-mail]
>
>Seems to me, Bryan, that confusion is on the other foot.

A true fool, as you appear to be, is never confused. But he's
generally wrong.

-Matt

--
| Matthew J. Brown  | Dept. of Computing | If God intended for us to go to   |
| [e-mail]  | Imperial College,  | lectures He wouldn't have created |
| [e-mail] | 180 Queen's Gate   | double-sided photocopiers.        |
| Morven on Lambda  | LONDON SW7 2AZ     |          -IC RagMag 1991/92       |