From: hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: DAVE HAYES MAY BE RIGHT!
Date: 17 Dec 92 20:00:44 GMT
Organization: negligable

In article <1992Dec14.220327.12862@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>You're forgetting the messages posted with an explicit Subject: line...
>
>All ONE of them?

How many do you want, Dave?

>>I assume you have a better idea. Please state it. I might even go along with
>>it, if it's workable.
>
>It won't be to you. Trust me. 

Oooooooh!

>>>But they had to know TO read the articles to PREVENT what they didn't know
>>>was going to occur. 
>>They made a *choice* not to read the article. Informed or no, we *cannot*
>>force him to read the article. If they choose to not read and respond to an
>>article with the subject "They want to rename rec.music.synth", what can we do
>>for them?
>
>How about some net history? How about posting the articles more frequently?

So now we should post discussion of the history of the usenet in 
a group about music?  I can see how well that would be accepted.
Discussions concerning the usenet are posted in groups for discussions
concerning the usenet.

>>I have no doubt that more folks would vote NO if the vote were to be
>>invalidated and repeated, if only because you've incited the masses...the only
>>problem is that you waited a month too long to start stirring the pot.
>
>Is _that_ why you are so opposed to a revote?

No.  I (personally) am opposed because there has been no legitimate
justification for one -- merely a lot of kvetching that "I didn't
KNOW it would pass (*sniff*)  I really REALLY meant to get more
voters on my side, really!  Kin I have another turn, huh? Kin I?".
(and you don't even bother to say "pleeeeease"!)

>>I've considered your point of view, and have blown more holes in it than a
>>shotgunned Swiss cheese. You choose not to accept that; that's your
>>prerogative, but don't accuse me of not having considered it.
>
>It's my point of view. Sorry. 

So are we.  Very.  Hope you get better soon.

>>There is no way to tell otherwise when dealing with a process that requires
>>voluntary participation. To say otherwise is to accuse those who do not vote
>>of stupidity or worse.
>
>How about misapplied but intelligent filtering of articles?

Too bad.  Wasn't intelligent enough, was it?

>>>How can you show 24 lines of body AND at least 4 header lines in one 
>>>screenful if the default number of lines is 24? 
>>OK, let me be a little clearer: it shows the user the header lines, waits for
>>a keypress, then shows the next 24 lines.
>
>And the user hits 'n' because there's nothing that interests them apparent on
>the first page.

Actually my screen shows the header AND the first 20 or so lines before
I even get a chance to hit 'N'.  That should be enough information to
clue them in that *something* is going on.  I will admit, however, that
not all newsreaders are created equal.  (note: that applies to the
"wetware" as much as the software!)


		-Richard Hartman
		hartman@ulogic.COM

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Never speak in absolutes.  It will always lead to trouble.