From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Subject: Re: DAVE HAYES MAY BE RIGHT!
Reply-To: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena, CA
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 00:30:34 GMT

jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>How do _you_ know this? There's all sorts of possibilities...maybe he never
>>saw them come around...maybe they were expired on his system and he saw
>                     -- and so didn't read them...
>>no traffic so he unsubscribed...maybe he read them but the articles made no
>                               -- and so didn't read them...
>>sense because he didn't have enough of a referent point into the USENET
>>experience? 

Because he didn't read them does NOT MEAN that he (or she) does NOT HAVE
a right to be consulted and/or heard on the future of his or her newsgroup. 

>To argue this, you must argue that the articles themselves were unclear. Yet
>another lame argument, and one plainly unsupported by the facts.

The articles were unclear. We've been through this before. 

>I've _been_ tuned for the past two months! You're approaching Microsoft's
>delivery schedule. Put up or shut up.

I don't have to do either. 

>>>ignoring the crucial difference: the only thing stopping the ignorant in the
>>>case of net.votes is themselves. No laws, nobody deliberately hiding
>>>information, nothing like that.
>>Maybe not deliberately, but it is obscure enough (to new users) that it
>>might as well be deliberate. 
>There goes the bullshit flag again. *poing* 

That's your "viewpoint that I don't support" flag. Get it right. 

>The information is there, and can
>be understood with a minimum of effort - and there's been at least one actual
>proposed article posted to clarify things even more.

Minimum to YOU. Average to others. Intense to some. 

>>Ok, Fair enough. You can't make people read messages. You can make it easier
>>for them TO read and understand messages. You can make the messages simpler
>>and easier to understand. You can post them more frequently. You can
>>construct subject lines so people are more likely to read them. 
>Post concrete proposals, please; don't just fold up and go home when they draw
>criticism - learn from it and improve them. I'm willing to help in that
>process, but I have to have something to look at first.

I don't know that your help is appropriate. You seem to have such a narrow
view of things that you may hinder our efforts to get things to rank novices.

>>These simple things are SO important (assuming you want people to be 
>>informed) that their absence appears TO ME as a "deliberate attempt 
>> to foster ignorance".
>Many people manage to be informed despite the factors you mention, 

*poing*

That doesn't mean that ALL people manage to be informed, or even a "significant
percentage" manage to be. Now it's YOUR turn to provide some numbers. 

>evidence that loud, long discussion to the point of getting people to complain
>loudly about the discussion itself doesn't increase participation past the
>thousand voters or so point. 

Well, when you talk AT them instead of TO them, that kind of thing happens.

>>>Make sure you explain why even extremely hyped votes draw less than 5% 
>>>of the Reid readership number of the group.
>>Because that's the number of people who can get, read, and understand
>>the voting practices and procedures material that is currently posted.
>Yeah, right. Even though the proposal itself came with almost insultingly
>simple instructions on just exactly how to vote.

Insulting to your miiighty intellect perhaps. Most people probably saw the
first 22 lines and said "Oh, this doesn't affect me". 
-- 
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov       dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov         ...usc!elroy!dxh

Most novices picture themselves as masters - and are content with the
picture. This is why there are so few masters.
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.native