From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Subject: Re: CFV? What's a CFV??
Reply-To: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena, CA
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 09:35:37 GMT

baldwin@csservera.scs.usna.navy.mil (J.D. Baldwin) writes:
>>That may have been workable a few years ago, but the USENET consensus
>>you describe doesn't actually represent more than a handfull of people
>>in comparison with readership surveys.
>I still believe it represents a consensus among the knowledgeable.

But not a consensus of the participants. It's not a question of 
knowledge, the participants should get a chance to participate in
the organization of what they are participating in. 

>The non-knowledgeable ought to be spending more energy becoming
>knowledgeable before spending energy posting stupid (yes, you heard
>me: "stupid") questions to an international readership.

Ought to, yes. I'd agree that people should always strive to be less
ignorant. 

However, the motiviation for doing so in a depth-wise manner
has some correlation with the perceived utility of the subject matter.
If the utility of the information is not known until one has contemplated
the ramifications thereof, how can you imply that the motivation should
be there?

>A site that doesn't get news.groups whose management (or users) think
>should have an equal voice in USENET's configuration is a screwed-up
>site.

Again, unwilling ignorance ("I didn't even know that was open for discussion")
is not a justification for coercion or negativity. 

>posting a question to the entire network?  I'd call most of the FAQ
>documents I've read "as clear as it hurts to be," whatever that means.

D-uh...what's FAQ mean? I'm joking...but you should see people who have
no clue as to USENET look at me funny when I start using net.jargon. 
"Yeah, the FAQ said that IMO, CFV's are just flamebait." 

>>Are we now debating who does and does not have a right to express an
>>opinion and participate in net.politics, by virtue of current or
>>chosen life standards? 
>Oh, here we go.  Express an opinion contrary to the prevailing view
>that all viewpoints and all opinions are exactly morally and
>informationally equal, and the topic of "rights" instantly rears its
>ugly head.  

Well, what did you expect? :-)

>And what exactly are "chosen life standards"?  

I was referring to the apparently demeaning use of "BBSers" and "Hackers".

>However, I do think it's relevant to an evaluation of someone's posts
>in news.groups, for example, that his "chosen life standards" include
>near-willful ignorance of the USENET conventions on the subject and a
>wanton disregard for contributing pure noise to a forum that already
>has way too much noise.  

Well, some BBSers do that and some don't. 

>Sadly, a great many people seem to believe that the "elitist" view
>that some opinions should and do count for more than others (trivial,
>reductio ad absurdam examples provided on request) translates into a
>desire to see all "non-qualified" opinions somehow suppressed or
>stamped out.  Those people are wrong.  (Whoops, there I go again.)

If you cite the example of news.groups...I'd say that these people
are plentiful. 

>If not, it doesn't mean you're not allowed to criticize, of course,
>but I would like to know what defects you're referring to.  

I would do the net a disservice (and to some I've already crossed that
line) if I were to shove all of those ideas out without carefully
considering them. Rest assured that you and everyone else will hear
from me on the defects AND some proposed solutions to them.

>>It is faster for most people to ask a human for answers than it is to
>>ferret things out, search for relavence, and skim topics.
>It's only "faster" for the half who's asking.  It slows down the rest
>of us who try to wade through all the noise on newsgroups where FAQ's
>are designed to suppress a lot of it.  

Nevertheless, it is most "users" operating principle. 

>>I wouldn't [administer an entrance exam for USENET] myself. 
>But you just finished saying that a problem endemic to the net is that
>most users don't know how to find (or even that they are supposed to
>find) the basic documents that clarify procedures and conventions
>here. 

Yes, I did. A user can only become aware if they wish it. To force 
awareness on them (by means of the carrot of access) is not my 
responsibility.

>sake of argument.)  Do you have a better solution, or should we all
>just tolerate unlimited noise on every group, without ever expressing
>disapproval, for fear of being branded "elitist"?

(I hate to say this) I *will* make the attempt to come up with one.

>>>in USENET use is more valid than another.  And, if you disagree, then
>>>please explain to me within this "situational" context why I should
>>>not have crossposted this article to sci.physics and rec.autos.driving.
>>I disagree and you probably SHOULD have crossposted this to those
>>groups.
>D'oh!  There goes my reductio ad absurdam!

Most arguments gain a great deal of absurdam from being reducto'd. 
-- 
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov       dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov         ...usc!elroy!dxh

   It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.